Hard Rock Pillar Strength Estimation Lunder PDF

HARD ROCK PILLAR STRENGTH ESTIMATION
AN APPLIED EMPIRICAL APPROACH
By
PER JOHN LUNDER
B.A.Sc., The University of British Columbia, 1983
A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF
THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF APPLIED SCIENCE
in
THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES
DEPARTMENT OF MINING AND MINERAL PROCESS ENGINEERING
We accept this thesis as conforming
to the required standard
THE UNIVERSITY OF BRiTISH COLUMBIA
August 18, 1994
© Per John Lunder, 1994

In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced
degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Ubrary shall make it
freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive
copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my
department or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying or
publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written
permission.
(Signature)
Department of Mi vzo c&S

The University of British Columbia
Vancouver, Canada
Date 1
PRJ’ tQ ) t)’-1.
DE$ (2)88)
ABSTRACT
Pillars are present in all hard rock mining operations and in order to effectively design these pillars, an
estimate of the pillar strength is required. Two new pillar strength estimation methods for hard rock mine
pillars are presented in this thesis. 31 pillar case histories of the database that was used to develop these new
formulae were acquired during a cooperative study, entitled “Ground Stability Guidelines for the Extraction of
Barrier Pillars in Hard Rock Mines”, between Westmin Resources Ltd. and The Canadian Centre for Mineral
and Energy Technology (CANMET). 147 additional case histories were acquired from six documented hard
rock pillar case studies in the literature, resulting in a combined database of 178 case histories.
The combined database is comprised mainly of massive sulphide pillars with rock mass ratings of
between 60% and 85%. Major structural features were not deemed to be an influence in pillar instability.
Pillar stressess were calculated using either tributary area theory or numerical modelling methods. The factors
determined to influence pillar strength for the combined database therefore are:
• the average pillar confinement (which is a function of pillar geometry)

• the unconfined compressive strength of the intact pillar material
• the stresses that a pillar is subjected to
The degree to which a pillar has failed is quantifiable using a pillar stability classification index which
ranges from “1” (stable) to “5” (failed). The estimation of pillar stresses is preferably determined using three-
dimensional numerical modelling, but in some situations two-dimensional numerical modelling or tributary
area theory may provide adequate results. It was concluded that the full size unconfined compressive strength
of a pillar can be approximated by a strength size factor of 44 percent of the small scale unconfined
compressive strength of intact pillar material.
Two pillar strength formulae have been developed from the combined pillar database: “The Log-Power
Shape Effect Formula” and “The Confinement Formula”. Both of the methods utilize the average pillar
confinement. “The Log-Power Shape Effect Formula” is a refined shape effect formula which has a form
similar to that proposed by researchers in the past. “The Confinement Formula” has a form that resembles the
Mohr-Coulomb shear strength formula.
The combined database was analyzed and the predicted strengths from “The Confinement Formula”
was compared to the results for existing pillar strength methods (Hedley & Grant (1972), Bieniawski (1975),
Salamon & Munro (1967), Obert & Duvall (1967), Hoek & Brown (1980)). “The Confinement Formula” is
shown statistically to be the most reliable method of estimating the strength of the pillars that make up the
combined database.
11
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES
LIST FIGURES x
LIST OF PHOTOS xvi
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS xvii
1. INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 CONTENTS OF THESIS 1
1.2 PILLAR STRENGTH ASSESSMENT AN OVERVIEW - 2
1.3ROLEOFPILLARS1NMINLNG 3
2. PILLAR DESIGN METHODOLOGY 5
2.1 PILLAR STRESS DETERMINATION 7
2.1.1 Tributary Area Theory 8
2.1.1.1 Pariseau (1982) Inclined Stress Formulae 12
2.1.1.2 Szwilski (1982) Chain Pillar Formula 13
2.1.1.3 Hedley & Grant’s (1972) Formula for Inclined Pillars 13
2.1.1.4 Subsidence Formula 14
2.1.2 Numerical Methods 15
2.1.3 Discussion Pillar Stress Determination
- 16
2.2 PILLAR STRENGTH DETERMiNATION 17
2.2.1 Empirical Design Methods 17
2.2.1.1 Linear Shape Effect Formula 18
2.2.1.1.1 Obert&Duvall (1967) 18
2.2.1.1.2 Bieniawski (1975) 19
2.2.1.1.3 Hudyma (1988) 20
2.2.1.2 Power Shape Effect Formula 20
2.2.1.3 Effective Pillar Width 21
2.2.1.4Hoek & Brown (1980) Failure Criteria 22
2.2.1.5 The Size Effect Formula 25
2.2.1.5.1 Salamon & Munro (1967) 26
2.2.1.5.2 Hedley & Grant (1972) 27
2.2.1.5.3 Sheorey et al. (1987) 30
2.2.1.6 Discussion Empirical Strength Formulae
- 30
2.2.2 Theoretical Design Methods 30
2.2.2.1 Wilson’s (1972) Confined Core Method 30
Lu
2.2.2.2 Coates (1965) .32
2.2.2.3 Panek (1979) 32
2.2.2.4 Grobbelaar (1970) 33
2.2.2.5 Discussion Theoretical Strength Formulae
-
34
2.2.3 Heuristic Methods 34
2.2.3.1 Mines Inspector Formula 34
2.2.3.2 Holland (1964) Formula 35
2.2.3.3 Morrison et al. (1961) 35
2.2.3.4 Barrier Pillar Formula 35
2.3 NUMERICAL MODELLING TECHNIQUES 36
2.3.1 Pillar Design Using Numerical Models 36
2.3.2 Types of Modelling Methods 37
2.3.2.1 Continuum Methods 37
2.3.2.2 Integral Methods 37
2.3.2.3 Discontinuum Methods 38
2.3.2.4 Hybrid Methods 38
2.3.3 Choice of Method 40
2.3.4 Pillar Failure Assessment using Numerical Models 42
2.3.5 Discussion Numerical Methods
- 42
2.4 PILLAR STRENGTH ESTIMATION METHODOLOGY AT WESTMIN RESOURCES LTD.’S H-W
MINE 45
2.5 CHAPTER SUMMARY 45
3. PILLAR FAILURE MECHANISM 46
3.1 PILLAR STABILiTY ASSESSMENT 47
3.2 FACTORS RELATED TO PILLAR STABILITY 47
3.2.1 Intact Rock Strength 49
3.2.2 Pillar Stress 49
3.2.3 Pillar Shape 49
3.2.4 Pillar Volume 50
3.2.5 Pillar Modulus 50
3.2.6 Constitutive Relationship 50
3.2.7 Pillar Confmement 51
3.2.8 Structural Features 52
3.3 PILLAR STABILITY CLASSIFICATION METHOD AT WESTMIN RESOURCES LTD. H-W MINE53
4. PILLAR STRENGTH ESTIMATION AT WESTMIN RESOURCES LTD.’S, H-W MINE, A CASE
-
STUDY 55
iv
4.1 GEOLOGY OF THE H-W MINE 55
4.2 MINING PRACTICE AT THE H-W MINE 58
4.3 WESTMIN IN-SITU DATABASE 61
4.3.1 Intact Strength Analysis 61
4.3.2 Fabric Analysis 61
4.3.3 Rock Mass Classification 63
4.3.4 Geometry 63
4.3.5 In-Situ Stress Determination 64
4.4 PILLAR STRENGTH ESTIMATION AT WESTMIN RESOURCE LTD.’S H-W MINE 66
4.4.1 Numerical Modelling 66
4.4.1.1 Map3D Numerical Modelling Program 67
4.4.1.2 Westmin Map3D Modelling Sessions 68
4.4.1.2.1 Sensitivity Analysis 69
4.4.1.3 Map3D Core Barrier Pillar Stress vs. Average Barrier Pillar Stress
- 70
4.4.1.4 Determination Of Average “Small” Pillar Stresses at Westmin Resources 70
4.4.1.5 Model Calibration to Actual Mining Conditions 73
4.4.1.6 Numerical Modelling Summary 73
4.4.2 Pillar Stability Classification 73
4.4.3 Pillar Geometry 74
4.4.4 Westmin Pillar Database 74
4.4.5 Development of a Pillar Strength Relationship 75
4.4.5.1 Pillar Stability Plots 80
4.4.5.1.1 Excluded Pillars 80
4.4.5.2 Division of Pillar Classes 82
4.4.5.3 Factor of Safety 84
4.4.5.4 Stability Line with Individual Data Sets 84
4.4.5.5 Pillar Strength Relationship 86
5. NEW PILLAR STRENGTH FORMULAE 88
5.1 PILLAR DATABASE 88
5.1.1 Westmin Database 89
5.1.2 Hudyma (1988) 89
5.1.3 Von Kimmelman et al. (1984) 94
5.1.4 Hedley & Grant (1972) 95
5.1.5 Sjoberg (1992) 95
5.1.6 Krauland & Soder (1987) 96
5.1.7 Brady (1977) 100
v
5.1.8 Database Summary. ioo
5.2 HARD ROCK PILLAR SThENGTH FORMULAE DERIVATION .102
5.2.1 Empirical Strength Formula Derivation Methodology 102
5.2.2 Requirements for a Strength Formula 102
5.2.3 Pillar Strength Variables 103
5.2.3.1 Pillar Geometry 104
5.2.3.2 Pillar Confinement 104
5.2.3.2.1 Detailed Modelling 105
5.2.3.2.2 Additional Modelling 105
5.2.3.2.3 Discussion Pillar Confinement
-
107
5.2.3.3 Intact Rock Strength 110
5.2.3.4 Influence Of Pillar Volume On Strength 110
5.2.3.5 Pillar Stress Determination 111
5.2.3.6 Pillar Stability Classification 112
5.2.4 Refmed Empirical Strength Formulae 113
5.2.4.1 Linear Shape Effect 113
5.2.4.2 Refined Power Shape Effect 117
5.2.4.3 Log-Power Shape Effect 117
5.2.4.4 Discussion Refined Empirical Strength Formulae
-
119
5.2.5 A New Strength Hypothesis The Confinement Formula
- 120
5.2.5.1 Mohr-Coulomb-Navier’s Theory 121
5.2.5.2 Frictional Effect of Mine Pillars 121
5.2.5.3 The Confinement Formula 124
5.3 SUCCESS OF THE EMPIRICAL AN]) PROPOSED FORMULAE 127
5.3.1 Success Matrix Methodology 127
5.3.2 Success of Confmement and Refined Empirical Formulae 128
5.3.3 Success of Confmement Formula against Past Formulae 129
5.3.3.1 Hock & Brown (1980) Pillar Curves 129
5.3.3.2 Other Methods with Original Strength Size Coefficient 129
5.3.3.3 Revised Methods with New Strength Size Coefficient 129
6. SUMMARY and CONCLUSIONS 136
6.1 SUMMARY 136
6.1.1 Current Pillar Strength Determination Methods 136
6.1.2 Assessment of Pillar Failure 136
6.1.3 Pillar Strength Estimation Methods 137
6.1.3.1 Refined Empirical Strength Formulae 137
vi
6.1.3.2 ANew Strength Hypothesis .137
6.1.4 Pillar Strength Calibration 138
6.2 FUTURE WORK 138
6.3 CONCLUSIONS 138
BIBLIOGRAPHY 139
APPENDIX A TWO DIMENSIONAL PARAMETRIC MODELLING RESULTS
- - 147
APPENDIX B METRIC TO IMPERIAL CONVERSION OF UNITS USED IN THESIS
- 166
vii
LIST OF TABLES
Table I: “Linear Shape Effect” emprirical constants, “A” and “B”, from various authors 19
Table 2: Approximate relationship between rock mass quality and material constants (after Hoek & Brown,
1988) 23
Table 3: “Size Effect Formulae” empirical constants, “a” and “b”, from various authors 26
Table 4: Salamon & Munro (1967) database summary for compiled case histories 27
Table 5: “Size Effect” empirical constants determined by Salamon & Munro (1967) 27
Table 6: Pillar failure classification method (after Krauland & Soder, 1987) 48
Table 7: Westmin Resources Ltd.’s pillar stability classification method 54
Table 8: Westmin intact rock properties for the H-W Main Zone 62
Table 9: Summary of joint features or the Westmin H-W Main Zone 64
Table 10: In-situ triaxial stress measurement results at the H-W Mine 66
Table 11: In-situ biaxial stress measurement results at the H-W Mine 66
Table 12: Pillar stability classification method for Westmin Resources Ltd.’s H-W Mine 74
Table 13: Original pillar classification database for Westmin Resources Ltd.’s H-W Mine 76
Table 14: Factor of safety determined for pillar stability classification division lines 84
Table 15: Westmin Resources Ltd., summary pillar database 90
Table 16: Hudyma (1988) original geometric and pillar stability classification data (after Hudyma, 1988) 91
Table 17: Hudyma (1988) original stress data (after Hudyma, 1988) 92
Table 18: Hudyma (1988), summary pillar database 93
Table 19: Summary of rock properties from the Selbi-Philcwe Mines (after Von Kimmelman et al. 1984) 95
Table 20: Original pillar classification data for square pillars from the Selbi-Phikwe Mines (after Von
Kimmelman et al., 1984) 97
Table 21: Von Kimmelman et al. (1984), summary pillar database 98
Table 22: Hedley & Grant (1972) original pillar database. (after Hedley & Grant, 1972) 99
Table 23: Hedley & Grant (1972), summary pillar database 100
Table 24: Sjoberg (1992), summary pillar database 101
Table 25: Krauland & Soder (1987), summary pillar database 101
Table 26: Brady (1977), summary pillar database 101
Table 27: Results of two-dimensional parametric modelling sessions to investigate average pillar
confinement 106
Table 28: Results of two-dimensional parametric modelling sessions investigating the effects of differing
modelled extraction ratios on the average pillar confinement 108
Table 29: Common pillar stability assessment designation for each individual database in the combined
database 112
VIII
Table 30: Linear shape effect constants and strength size factor determined for each of the individual databases
in the combined database 114
Table 31: Pillar strength prediction success matrix methodology 127
Table 32: Summary of success matrix prediction methodology 127
ix
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Sketch of streamlines in a smoothly flowing stream obstructed by three bridge piers (after Hoek &
Brown, 1980) 8
Figure 2: Layout of barrier pillars and panel pillars in a laterally extensive orebody (after Brady & Brown,
1985) 9
Figure 3: Pillar layout for extraction of an inclined orebody, showing biaxially confined transverse and
longitudinal pillars, ‘A’ and ‘B’, respectively (after Brady & Brown, 1985) 9
Figure 4: Typical pillar layouts showing loads carried by variouspillars assuming total rock load to be
uniformly distributed over all pillars (after Hoek & Brown, 1980) 11
Figure 5: Redistribution of stress in the axial direction of a pillar accompanying stope development (after
Brady & Brown, 1985) 12
Figure 6: Basis of the tributary area method for estimating average axial pillar stress in an extensive mine
structure, exploiting long rooms and rib pillars (after Brady & Brown, 1985) 13
Figure 7: The “Chain Pillar Formula” layout (after Szwilski, 1982) 14
Figure 8: The Hudyma (1988) pillar stability graph showing the stable, transition, and failed zones (after
Hudyma, 1988) 20
Figure 9: Idealized illustration of the transition from intact rock to a heavily jointed rock mass with increasing
sample size (after Hoek & Brown, 1980) 22
Figure 10: Hoek & Brown (1980) pillar strength curves for igneous crystalline rock (after Hock & Brown,
1980) 25
Figure 11: Histogram showing frequencies of intact pillar performance, and pillar failure, for South African
coal mines (after Salamon & Munro, 1967) 28
Figure 12: Hedley & Grant’s (1972) method for the determination of pillar stress (after Hedley & Grant, 1972).29
Figure 13: Hedley & Grant’s (1972) estimation of pillar stresses and strengths (after Hedley & Grant, 1972). 29
Figure 14: Conceptual models relating rock structure and rock response to excavation (after Brown, 1987). ...36
Figure 15: Development of a finite element model of a continuum problem, and specification of element
geometry and loading for a constant strain, triangular finite element (after Brady & Brown, 1985).38
Figure 16: Simplified finite element and boundary element problem formulation for the same excavation
geometry (after Brown, 1987) 39
Figure 17: Superposition scheme demonstrating that generation of an excavation is mechanically equivalent to
introducing a set of traction’s on a surface in a continuum (after Brady & Brown, 1985) 39
Figure 18: Surface, element and load distribution description for development of a quadratic, isoparametric,
indirect boundary element formulation (after Brady & Brown, 1985) 39
Figure 19: Principal stress distribution in a rib pillar defined by a ratio of pillar width to height of 1.0. The
contour values are given by the ratio of major and minor principal stresses to the average pillar
x
stress. Plane strain analysis for uniformly distributed vertical applied stress (after Hoek & Brown,
1980) 40
Figure 20: An idealized sketch showing the principle of numerical modelling of underground excavations
(after Hudyma, 1988) 41
Figure 21: Nonnal and shear modes of interaction between distinct elements (after Brady & Brown, 1985). ...41
Figure 22: Modelled pillar failure as a result of pillar reduction (after Brady, 1977) 43
Figure 23: The peak strength, deformation characteristics, and effect of location used for investigating a pillar
case history with a displacement discontinuity program (after Maconochie et al., 1981) 43
Figure 24: The normal stress and the failed regions estimated with the displacement discontinuity program,
NFOLD, for a sill pillar case history (after Maconochie et al., 1981) 44
Figure 25: The distribution of normal stress in a mining block was estimated for two different mining
sequences to determine the best extraction sequence using displacement discontinuity methods (after
Bywater et al., 1983) 44
Figure 26: Principal modes of deformation behaviour of mine pillars (after Brady & Brown, 1985) 47
Figure 27: Fracturing of rock specimens at various stages of loading (after Krauland & Soder, 1987) 48
Figure 28: Relationship between pillar shape and pillar strength for constants suggested by various authors
(after Hock & Brown, 1980) 49
Figure 29: Relationship between pillar volume and pillar strength for constants suggested by various authors
(after Hock & Brown, 1980) 50
Figure 30: Influence of specimen size upon the strength of intact rock (after Hock & Brown, 1980) 51
Figure 31: Effect of specimen size on compressive strength (after Kostak, 1971) 52
Figure 32: Size effect in modulus of deformation, E (after Kostak & Bielenstein, 1970) 52
Figure 33: Stress distribution in a coal pillar at various stages of loading (after Wagner, 1974) 53
Figure 34: Stress strain curves for laboratory specimens loaded under increasing confining stresses show an
-
increase in peak load and an increase in the post-peak load bearing capacity (after Starfield &
Fairhurst, 1968) 53
Figure 35: Schematic illustration of Westmin Resources Ltd.’s pillar stability classification method Class “1”
-
- “5” 54
Figure 36: Location plan of Westmin Resources Ltd.’s Myra Falls operations 56
Figure 37: A simplified cross-section of the H-W Mine showing the location of the shaft, lateral development
and the major orebodies 57
Figure 38: Schematic of mining method and the respective location within the orebody used in the H-W Mine.58
Figure 39: Schematic layout for sublevel open stoping with ring-drilled blast holes (after Hamrin, 1982) 59
Figure 40 Schematic layout for room-and-pillar mining (after Hamrin, 1982) 60
Figure 41: Elements of a supported method of mining (after Hamrin, 1982) 60
Figure 42: Isometric view showing the major joint sets identified within the H-W Main Zone 63
Figure 43: Isometric view showing the location of stopes with the H-W Main Zone 65
xi
Figure 44: Isometric view showing the location of the barrier pillars within the H-W Main Zone 65
Figure 45: Polar stereonet plots of the results of the triaxial and the biaxial in-situ stress measurement programs
within the H-W Main Zone 67
Figure 46: Simplified barrier pillar schematic showing the development of the “small” pillars 68
Figure 47: Typical Map3D stress modelling output showing the location at which the core stress was
determined 69
Figure 48: Barrier pillar stress comparison, average Map3D barrier pillar stresses vs. core Map3D barrier pillar
stresses 71
Figure 49: Plan showing the stope and pillar configurations that were used to perform the parametric modelling
sessions to justify the use of the tributary area method for determining the stresses on the “small”
pillars within the barrier pillars 72
Figure 50: Definition of pillar geometry terms used at Westmin Resources Ltd.’s H-W Mine 75
Figure 51: Definition of pillar types for classification purposes 77
Figure 52: Stability plot of massive sulphide, drawpoint and rib pillars from the H-W Mine 81
Figure 53: Stability plot of massive suiphide, nose pillars from the H-W Mine 81
Figure 54: Stability plot with the stability classification division lines, for massive sulphide, drawpoint and rib
pillars from the H-W Mine. The excluded pillars are not plotted on this figure 83
Figure 55: Stability plot with the stability classification division lines, for massive sulphide, drawpoint and rib
pillars from the H-W Mine. All drawpoint and rib pillars are included on this figure 85
Figure 56: Stability plot with the stability classification division lines, for massive sulphide, nose pillars 85
Figure 57: Hudyma pillar stability graph with all the pillars that made up more than one case history joined to
indicate loading paths that pillars were subjected to (after Hudyma, 1988) 94
Figure 58: Plan of classified mine pillars at the Selbi-Phikwe Mines (after Von Kimmelman et al., 1984) 96
Figure 59: Relationship determined between average pillar confinement and pillar width / height ratio for a
modelled extraction ratio of 99.5% 108
Figure 60: Relationship between the average pillar confinement and pillar width / height ratio for differing
modelled extraction ratios 109
Figure 61: Plot of the variation in the Cp coefficient for different modelled extraction ratios 109
Figure 62: Histogram showing the variation in the influence of the pillar volume on pillar strength for all data
in the combined database 111
Figure 63: Stability graph for the Westmin database showing the range of slopes for the stability lines and the
valid range for pillar width / height ratios 115
Figure 64: Stability graph for the Hudyma (1988) database showing the range of slopes for the stability lines
and the valid range for pillar width / height ratios 115
Figure 65: Stability graph for the Von Kimmelman et al. (1984) database showing the range of slopes for the
stability lines and the valid range for pillar width / height ratios 116
xii
Figure 66: Stability graph for the Hedley & Grant (1972) database showing the range of slopes for the stability
lines and the valid range for pillar width / height ratios 116
Figure 67: Stability graph showing the stability lines over the valid width I height ratio ranges for each of the
individual databases plotted alongside the strength formulae subsequently developed 118
Figure 68: Stability graph for the “Refined Power Shape Effect” formula with a power coefficient, “&‘, of 0.45,
plotted along with all of the case histories in the combined database 118
Figure 69: Plot of the preferred value of the refined power coefficient, “Ct”, for differing values of pillar width I
height ratio plotted along with the relationship represented by Equation 44 119
Figure 70: Stability graph for the “Log Power Shape Effect” formula with a power coefficient represented by
Equation 45, plotted along with all of the case histories in the combined database 120
Figure 71: Construction of a Mohr’s failure envelope with reference to average pillar confinement, Cpa, 122
Figure 72: Construction of Mohr’s failure envelopes for differing values of average pillar confinement, Cp. 123
Figure 73: Mohr-Coulomb pillar strength envelope for any value of average pillar confinement, Cp 123
Figure 74: Stability graph for “The Confinement Formula” as described by Equation 48, plotted along with all
of the case histories in the combined database 125
Figure 75: Confinement graph for “The Confinement Formula” as described by Equation 48 with pillar width /
height ratio replaced by average pillar confmement on the x-axis and plotted along with all of the
case histories in the combined database 125
Figure 76: Stability graph comparing the newly developed pillar strength formulae 126
Figure 77: Confinement graph comparing the newly developed pillar strength formulae 126
Figure 78: Pillar strength prediction success statistics for the newly developed formulae for all data in the
combined database 128
Figure 79: Stability graph with the Hoek & Brown (1980) pillar curves for good to very-good rock masses
plotted over all of the data in the combined database 131
Figure 80: Pillar strength prediction success statistics for “The Confinement Formula” and the Hoek & Brown
(1980) pillar curves for differing rock mass quality 131
Figure 81: Stress strength plot for all data in the combined database using the Salamon & Munro (1967)
-
strength formula and “K” — 0.7.UCS 132

Figure 82: Stress strength plot for all data in the combined database using the Hedley & Grant (1972) strength
-
formula and “K” — 0.7.UCS 132

Figure 83: Stability graph for Bieniawski’s (1975) strength formula using “K” — 0.7.UCS plotted over all of
the data in the combined database 133
Figure 84: Pillar strength prediction success statistics for “The Confinement Formula” vs. Bieniawski (1975),
Hedley & Grant (1972), and Salamon & Munro (1967) using “K” 0.7.UCS 133
Figure 85: Stability graph for the original “Power Shape Effect Formula” using “K” — 0.44.UCS plotted over
all of the data in the combined database 134
xlii
Figure 86: Stability graph for Obert & Duvall’s (1967) and Bieniawski’s (1975) strength formulae using “K” —
0.44.UCS plotted over all of the data in the combined database 134
Figure 87: Pillar strength prediction success statistics for “The Confinement Formula” vs. the original; “Power
Shape Effect Formula”, Bieniawski (1975), and Obert & Duvall (1967) using “K” — 0.44.UCS. .135
Figure 88: Plot of pillar factor of safety for width / height ratios of 0.25 and 0.5. Hoek & Brown (1980) rock
mass constants used: m 10, s — 0.1. Modelling performed using Examine2D 148
Figure 89: Plot of pillar factor of safety for width / height ratios of 0.75 and 1.0. Hock & Brown (1980) rock
mass constants used: m — 10, s 0.1. Modelling performed using Examine2D 149
mass constants used: m — 10, s — 0.1. Modelling performed using Examine2D 150
mass constants used: m — 10, s — 0.1. Modelling performed using Exainine2D 151
mass constants used: m — 10, s — 0.1. Modelling performed using Examine2D 152
mass constants used: m — 10, s —0.1. Modelling performed using Examine2D 153
Figure 94: Principal stress plots for pillar width I height ratio of 0.25 using two-dimensional boundary element
modelling. Modelling performed using Exaxnine2D 154
Figure 95: Principal stress plots for pillar width / height ratio of 0.5 using two-dimensional boundary element
modelling. Modelling performed using Examine2D 155
modelling. Modelling performed using Exaniine2D 156
Figure 100: Principal stress plots for pillar width I height ratio of 1.75 using two-dimensional boundary
element modelling. Modelling performed using Exaxnine2D 160
Figure 102: Principal stress plots for pillar width! height ratio of 2.5 using two-dimensional boundary element
Figure 103: Principal stress plots for pillar width! height ratio of 3.0 using two-dimensional boundary element
xiv
Figure 104: Principal stress plots for pillar width / height ratio of 3.5 using two-dimensional boundaiy element
xv
LIST OF PHOTOS
Photo 1: A class “5” discrete pillar located within the 366 barrier pillar 78
Photo 5: A class “1.5” discrete pillar located within the 383 barrier pillar 80
xvi
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The author must thank certain individuals and groups for their contribution in bringing this work to
completion.
• Westmin Resources Ltd., Myra Falls Operations, and CANMET for providing both the funding
and the mining environment that made the collection of the data necessary for this project
possible.
• The Cy and Emerald Keyes Scholarship fund for financial support.
• The proof readers, you know who you are.
• My advisor, Dr. Rimas Pakalnis, for his questions, comments, criticism, and hands on approach to
mining related problems, without whom, this project would not have turned out as it did.
• My parents, Jean and Jakob Lunder for their support and encouragement,
• and finally, I must thank my wife Kaarina and my children, Angus and Emma, for their support
and patience through the disruption in their lives that this work has imposed upon them.
xvii
1. INTRODUCTION
Pillars are present in mining operations to provide support for mine openings. In order to design and
utilize pillars effectively, it is required that an estimate of the pillar strength be made. Pillars are often located
within “ore grade” material and as a result, mine operators strive to maximize the extraction of this valuable
resource while maintaining overall mine stability. Economic conditions therefore dictate that the optimum
pillar is the smallest one that will meet the load bearing requirements. Failure to properly design and
implement pillar strategies may result in either pillar failure or over-designed pillars. Both of these cases may
leave valuable “ore grade” material unrecoverable.
In 1991, The Canadian Centre for Mineral and Energy Technology, Energy, Mines and Resources
Canada (CANMET) and Westmin Resources Ltd., Myra Falls Operations, initiated a research project to
investigate ground stability entitled: “Ground Stability Guidelines for the Extraction ofBarrier Pillar’s in Hard
Rock Mines”. The scope of this project was to investigate strategies for the extraction of barrier pillars at the
culmination of mining operations at Westmin Resources Ltd. ‘s H-W Mine.
This thesis presents an analysis of data collected for the estimation of the strength of hard rock mine
pillars at Westmin Resources Ltd.’s H-W Mine. A pillar strength relationship for mine pillars at Westmin
Resources Ltd. is developed. This data is analyzed in conjunction with published hard rock mine pillar data
from six additional sources and two new pillar strength estimation formulae, “The Log-Power Shape Effect
Formula” and “The Confinement Formula”, are proposed.
1.1 CONTENTS OF THESIS

This thesis deals with the estimation of the strength of hard rock mine pillars. The data used to derive
the new strength formulae was obtained by the author from Westmin Resources Ltd.’s H-W Mine and is
assimilated with the available published hard rock pillar case histories. This thesis is divided into six chapters
as follows:
1. INTRODUCTION: This chapter provides a thesis overview and a discussion of the role of pillars
in mining operations.
2. PILLAR DESIGN METHODOLOGY: This chapter reviews the current state-of-the-art of pillar
design in both hard rock and soft rock mining situations. These methods are reviewed in and the
limitations or benefits of each method are discussed. Numerical modelling techniques for stress
analysis are reviewed.
3. PILLAR FAILURE MECHANISM: This chapter investigates the mechanism of pillar failure and
identifies the variables that influence the stability of mine pillars. A description of the pillar stability
classification method developed for use at Westmin Resources Ltd.’s H-W Mine is presented.
4. PILLAR STRENGTH DETERMINATION AT WESTMIN RESOURCES LTD.’S, H-W MINE.
- A CASE STUDY.: This chapter examines the methodology that was utilized to develop a pillar
strength relationship for Westmin Resources Ltd.’s H-W Mine. An overview incorporating a
description of geology and mining methods is included. An empirical strength formula, presented in
the form of a pillar stability graph and a “Linear Shape Effect” formula, was derived from 31 of 65
pillar case histories collected by the author at the H-W Mine. The variables used to derive the pillar
strength relationship are: pillar stability classification, average pillar stress, and pillar geometry. The
data is normalized to the intact unconfmed compressive strength of pillar material so that it is
comparable to the additional data presented in Chapter 5.
5. NEW PILLAR STRENGTH FORMULAE: This Chapter augments the Westmin H-W Mine
pillar database with hard rock pillar data from six additional sources. This comprehensive database of
178 case histories is used to develop refined empirical strength formulae in the form of a “Shape
Effect Formula” as proposed by other researchers and discussed in Chapter 2. It was concluded that
previously developed strength determination methods did not fully describe the pillar behaviour of the
case histories in the combined database. Two-dimensional numerical modelling has been used to
derive a relationship between pillar width / height ratio and the average pillar confinement, Cp. The
average pillar confinement is subsequently used in the development of new empirical pillar strength
formulae. Two new pillar strength formulae are developed: “The Log-Power Shape Effect Formula”,
a purely empirical “Shape Effect” formula, and “The Confinement Formula”, a new empirical
hypothesis that relates the strength of mine pillars to average pillar confinement.
6. SUMMARY and CONCLUSIONS: Recommendations regarding the use of “The Confinement
Formula” and the use of numerical modelling to assess induced pillar loads are presented in this
chapter.
7. APPENDIX A: The results of two-dimensional parametric modelling sessions that were used to
develop the relationship between pillar width / height ratio and average pillar confinement are
presented in this appendix.
1.2 PILLAR STRENGTH ASSESSMENT AN OVERVIEW -
The design of mine pillars is an essential part of all mining operations and the methods that may be
used for design are quite varied. Hedley & Grant (1972) and Hudyma (1988) have proposed empirical pillar
strength determination methods for hard rock mine pillars. A large amount of research into pillar strength has
been based upon coal pillars in the United States and South Africa. An alternative strength criteria for jointed
rock masses was presented by Hock & Brown (1980) and was developed into a series of pillar strength curves.
2
The above methods can be used for the estimation of pillar strength, however, not with a high degree
of confidence in hard rock mining operations. There exists a need to develop a more reliable method of
designing hard rock mine pillars in underground mining operations. The benefits of a more reliable method of
pillar design may result in the following:
• increased ore recovery

• improved safety through better pillar design
• improved knowledge of pillar loading and failure mechanism such that modifications to mining
plans can be quantified
It is critical that pillars can be designed with confidence for a varying range of rock types, pillar
shapes, pillar sizes, and varying in-situ stress regimes.
1.3 RoLE OF PILLARS IN MINING

Pillars are found in all underground mines and play a wide and varied role depending on the situation
in which they are used. Pillar types can be:
• protection pillars surrounding mine shafts

• temporary pillars that allow quick exploitation of mineable reserves
• barrier pillars that must remain stable for the duration of a mine’s life.
Pillars may be designed such that failure will occur, while other pillars may require that they remain
stable for the duration of their life. In general, the role of a mine pillar is to support the adjacent rock mass for
a given period of time while mining takes place. In order for a pillar to perform its designed role, the strength
of a mine pillar and the load acting upon it must be assessed. If these two factors are not adequately
determined, the pillar may not perform as desired.
Salamon (1983) lists three major categories of pillar’s that can be classified: “support pillars”,
“protective pillars”, and “control pillars” as described below:
1. “Support pillars” include all pillars that are used in situations where undermined hangingwall
rock support is provided by a series of pillars. They are usually laid out in a systematic manner.
Examples in hard rock mining operations include room-and-pillar stope pillars, post-pillars and
rib pillars.
2. “Protection pillars” are employed to safeguard installations for which failure is intolerable.
Examples of installations to be protected are surface buildings, mine shafts, and boundary pillars
between two adjacent mining operations. These pillars can also be referred to as “shaft pillars”,
“roadway pillars”, or “boundary pillars”. A significantly high factor of safety is used in these
3
situations to compensate for potential errors associated with the assumptions made in pillar
strength estimation.
3. “Control pillars” are employed in situations where rockburst activity is anticipated or
experienced. These pillars are designed so that failure will not occur. They are designed to
reduce the magnitude of stress changes in a mine environment and to alleviate the risk of rock
bursting.
In consideration of these pillar types, this thesis will be concerned with “support pillars” only. When
designing “support pillars” in hard rock mines, the material that comprises the pillar is commonly ore-grade.
For this reason it is desirable for the mine operator to extract as much of this resource as possible. However,
pillars must be of sufficient size so that they can support the induced loads throughout their design life. These
two contradictory factors require that the amount of ore left in pillars and the amount of extraction be balanced
to optimize the exploitation of the orebody for profitability, while still operating in a safe and efficient manner.
The impact of poorly designed pillars can result in the mine being deemed uneconomic because of an overly
conservative design. Conversely, overly optimistic strength estimates can result in local or regional failure in
the mine horizon, making a portion or all of the mineable resource unrecoverable.
4
2. PILLAR DESIGN METHODOLOGY
A literature review of pillar design methods has been undertaken to assess the current state-of-the-art
in pillar design. The following sections define the procedures employed in pillar design and pillar strength
estimation. The majority of the research work in published literature has been performed in horizontally
bedded coal deposits, and as a result, these techniques are primarily applicable to similar deposits.
The function of pillars in mining is to maintain the stability of adjacent strata for the design life of the
pillars. Equation 1 is the primary, although simplistic, form of the pillar strength equation. The premise that
when pillar stress exceeds pillar strength, a pillar fails, forms the basis of all strength formulae. The factor of
safety can subsequently be used to compensate for errors in estimation of the input parameters used within the
strength formulae. This requires that strength and stress estimates be determined with the associated variability
in each.
F S Strength/
1
—
— /Stress
where:
F.S. Factor of safety against pillar failure.
Strength Pillar strength.
Stress = Applied pillar stress.
The assessment of pillar stress in non-tabular or irregular dipping deposits is a complex task. The
intact strength of a sample of rock can be determined reasonably accurately testing laboratory samples,
however, the correct method of applying this intact strength to make an assessment of the strength of a full size
sample (a pillar) is complex. The relationship between intact rock strength and in-situ pillar strength has been
the primary goal of many researchers investigating pillar strength.
A common approach for pillar design is to use experiences under similar conditions. This trial and
error method may have success on occasion, but is generally not based upon fundamental engineering
principles. A number of empirical and deterministic methods of estimating pillar stress and strength are
presented in this chapter.
Pillar design follows the premise that in most cases it is desirable to design pillars that will maintain
their load bearing capacity throughout their design life. In order to achieve this, the pillar strength must be
sufficient to support the stresses that the pillar will be subjected to. The two primary factors that must be
considered in designing mine pillars are pillar strength and pillar stress.
5
A rock mass is generally not a homogeneous isotropic medium and as such the determination of pillar
strength is highly dependent on the factors that affect the strength of a rock mass including, but not necessarily
limited to:
• the intact strength of pillar material

• the pillar geometry (width, height, width / height ratio)
• the structural features within the pillar
• the material properties of the pillar, such as deformational characteristics
• the effects of blasting on the pillar
Design methods are largely based on equating stress to strength so that a stable equilibrium exists.
This requires that an estimate of stress be made with levels of accuracy commensurate to strength estimates.
The actual pillar stress is dependent on, but not necessarily limited to:
• the in-situ stress conditions

• the mining induced stress changes
• the effects of geological features, such as faults and jointing
• the shape and orientation of pillars
• the spatial relationship between pillars and mine openings
• the effects of ground water
Potvin (1985) presents pillar design as being divided into four broad groups: heuristic, empirical,
theoretical, and computer methods. These broad categorizations represent the methods that have been used in
the past to design pillars and to assess the pillar strength.
Potvin (1985) states that heuristic methods are the most widely and least sophisticated methods used to
design mine pillars. Pillar design is generally based on the principle that “what worked before could work
again”. This technique does not consider the strength or loading conditions of pillars and as such is not
recommended.
Empirical, by definition, is the method of relying on experiment or experience. The primary

difference from heuristic methods is that case histories are studied and then applied to the future design of mine
pillars. Numerous researchers have undertaken empirical studies and developed empirical strength formulae
for the design of mine pillars. A drawback of this work is that the majority of the studies were performed in
coal mines. This work has been extrapolated to hard rock underground mines but not in a comprehensive
manner.
Theoretical methods of pillar design attempt to utilize mathematical concepts and input parameters to
design pillars based upon a rigorous formulation. Rock mass conditions can be highly variable and the
determination of the critical variables that would be used to design mine pillars are difficult, if not impossible,
6
to obtain. The complexity of theoretical approaches make their use both difficult and time consuming. Work
by Wilson (1972), Coates (1965), Grobbelaar (1970), and Panek (1979) will be discussed.
Numerical Methods have become a popular method of making an assessment of the stresses on pillars.
With relatively inexpensive computing power available to rock mechanics engineers, mine layouts can be
analyzed and predicted pillar stresses determined with a minimum of effort.
2.1 PILLAR STRESS DETERMINATION

The determination of the actual stresses acting on a pillar is difficult. As mentioned previously, the
pillar stress depends on a number of factors which include:
• the in-situ stress conditions

• the mining induced stress changes
• the effects of geological features, such as faults and jointing
• the shape and orientation of pillars
• the spatial relationship between pillars and mine openings
• the effects of ground water
Figure 1 is a simplified illustration of the theory of stress redistribution as being analogous to a stream
flowing around bridge piers. Two methods of calculating pillar stress are described in the literature. They are
tributary area theory (and its variations) and numerical modelling methods. Tributary area theory utilizes a
simplified approach to stress determination while numerical modelling relies on computational techniques to
determine stress redistribution around mine openings. Numerical modelling techniques can only be performed
on computers due to the associated complexities. Numerical models have become increasingly complex and
intricate as desktop computer power has increased and computers have become more affordable.
The importance of valid determination of the in-situ stresses must not be overlooked. It is common to
assume that the vertical in-situ stress component will be equal to the weight of the overlying strata. In
horizontally bedded deposits this may be adequate for determining normal stresses acting on pillars. In
irregular, non-tabular deposits, however, the induced pillar stress is a factor of the three principal stresses, not
just the vertical component. In-situ stresses in a particular locality may not vary greatly on average, but they
can vary significantly on a local scale as a result of geological structure and the proximity to surface. In-situ
stresses are generally of similar magnitudes and orientation over a large area, as in the Canadian shield for
example (Herget, 1987). All of the pillar stress determination techniques available are dependent upon the
values of in-situ stresses used.
7
r
Figure 1: Sketch of streamlines in a smoothly flowing stream obstructed by three bridge piers (after Hoek &
Brown, 1980).
2.1.1 Tributary Area Theory

Babcock et al. (1981) state that Bunting (1911) was the first author to introduce the tributaiy area
method for the determination of average pillar stress. Agapito (1972) however stated that the thbutary area
theory stemmed from an investigation into stress analysis utilizing photoelastic techniques. Photoelastic studies
showed that the stress concentration in pillars increased with the number of openings in the plate and with the
increase in the opening size to pillar size ratio. It was also shown that the stress concentration in central pillars
reaches an upper limit and becomes constant as the number of openings increases to five or more (Obert &
Duvall, 1967).
Tributary area theory assumes that a pillar will support its “share” of the applied load. Tributary area
theory is applicable to situations where similarly sized pillars are developed in a large regular array and is not
particularly applicable to:
• irregular and dipping deposits

• inconsistent or irregular mining patterns
• complex triaxial stress fields
Tributary area theory has been used with the greatest success in horizontally bedded deposits which
are uniform and cover a large area, such as horizontally bedded coal deposits or room-and-pillar mines.
Equation 2 is the equation for tributary area theory in a room-and-pillar mine utilizing equally sized
rectangular pillars. Figure 2 and Figure 3 illustrate some sample mining pillar layouts.
8
DDE
EEL
DEE
DEE
DD
stope. or mined
room panel pillar barrier pillar
Figure 2: Layout of barrier pillars and panel pillars in a laterally extensive orebody (after Brady & Brown,
1985).
Y Cross section Y — Y
orehody
boundary Y
Figure 3: Pillar layout for extraction of an inclined orebody, showing biaxially confined transverse and
longitudinal pillars, ‘A’ and ‘B’, respectively (after Brady & Brown, 1985).
9
0
W
a=yH. (1÷—). (1÷—) (2)
Wp Lp
where:
Average pillar stress (MPa)
Unit weight of rock (MN / m
)
3
H — Depth of overburden cover (m)
0
W — Width of opening (m)
3
L Length of opening (m)
W, — Pillar width (m)
— Pillar length (m)
Tributary area theory has also been referred to as the extraction ratio formula. The stress on the pillar
can be approximated based on the ratio of the amount of extraction around an array of pillars. Tributary area
theory can be written, in this case, in the form of Equation 3.
(3)
where:
— Average pillar stress (MPa)
aa In-situ stress normal to mining horizon (MPa)
R — Extraction Ratio
Tributary area theory is intended for use in tabular deposits where an estimation of the stress normal to
the orebody can be made with a high degree of confidence. It is used extensively in coal deposits, where
overburden stresses can be readily estimated. Figure 4, Figure 5, and Figure 6 illustrate pillar configurations
and the respective formulae that can be used to calculate the pillar stress using tributary area theory.
Variations of tributary area theory have been proposed to account for inclined mining geometries and
triaxial stress conditions. These are presented in the following sections.
10
Plan area of pillar on surface
+ w)
wo
RIB PILLARS — p
0 yz(1 + Wo/w) SQUARE PILLARS yz(l + 2
1e/Wp>
-
Pillar area Rock column
E
area
L
L9 0
IRREGULAR PILLARS -
Rock column area

Pillar area
RECTANGULAR PILLARS - oyz(l +Wo/w)(l +Lo/L)
Figure 4: Typical pillar layouts showing loads carried by various pillars assuming total rock load to be
uniformly distributed over all pillars (after Hoek & Brown, 1980).
11
post-mining
post-mining pillar abutment Stress
Stress distribution distribution
Figure 5: Redistribution of stress in the axial direction of a pillar accompanying stope development (after
Brady & Brown, 1985).
2.1.1.1 Pariseau (1982) Inclined Stress Formulae

Pariseau (1982) proposed a method of detennining the stresses acting on pillars in dipping seams that
would account for both the vertical and horizontal stress components. Equations 4 and 5 are the formulae for
the normal and shear stresses respectively, acting on inclined pillars.
(1+Ko)+(1—Ko)cos(2ct)
yII.
2 (4)
(l-R)
(1— Ko)sifl(2cL)
‘yH.
tp =
2 (5)
(1 -R)
where:
a’, = Average normal pillar stress (MPa)
tp — Average shear pillar stress (MPa)
— Unit weight of overburden (MN / m
)
3
H Depth below surface (m)
0
K — Ratio of in-situ horizontal to vertical stress
R Extraction ratio
a Dip of seam (degrees)
This is a variation on the tributary area theory approach that makes an estimate of normal and shear
stresses on a pillar, taking into account both horizontal and vertical components of in-situ stress. One
limitation of these formulae is that Pariseau (1982) assumes the magnitudes of the horizontal stresses are equal
in the horizontal plane. This is not necessarily the case as it has been shown that the magnitude of horizontal
stresses can be variable (Herget, 1987).
12
1< 4c P
(a)
Ii I I
(b)
,— I (C)
0 + w)
(w
Figure 6: Basis of the tributary area method for estimating average axial pillar stress in an extensive mine
structure, exploiting long rooms and rib pillars (after Brady & Brown, 1985).
2.1.1.2 Szwilski (1982) Chain Pillar Formula

Szwilski (1982) presented a modification to the tributary area theory for use in longwall coal mines
called the “Chain Pillar Formula”. The stress equation includes a term that considers the added load due to
the cantilevering effect of the immediate roof over the panel being mined. Figure 7 illustrates the terms used by
Szwilski (1982) in the “Chain Pillar Formula”. Equation 6 is the “Chain Pillar Formula”.
(Lp+S)(Wf +2Wp+3S)
a =yH. (6)
2WpLp
where:
Average pillar stress (MPa)
— Unit weight of overburden (MN / m
)
3
H Depth of overburden (m)
W, = Pillar width (m)
— Pillar length (m)
S Spacing of chain pillars (m)
Wf Width of face (m)
2.1.1.3 Hedley & Grant’s (1972) Formula for Inclined Pillars

This variation of tributary area theory, to account for inclined geometry in a triaxial stress field, was
presented by Hedley & Grant (1972), in conjunction with their pillar strength formula (Section 2.2.1.5.2). This
method considers the dip of the seam and the values of the vertical and average horizontal stresses acting in the
vicinity of the area under investigation. Equation 7 is Hedley & Grant’s (1972) stress formula for inclined
pillars.
13
Gob ‘•
-‘S I
\_•\ c c---
I Area of Strata
Lp+S Load on Chain Pillars
_.,, —-‘ \_• Gob
Coal
Ribside ( — ‘I
r
I- (
Coal Face
Coal Panel _
/{
- Wf Tail Entry
Chain Pillars
--
Figure 7: The “Chain Pillar Formula” layout (after Szwilski, 1982).
= (a)÷ohsin
2
yHcos
( cc)
(7)
(l-R)
where:
op Average normal pillar stress (MPa)

7 — Unit weight of overburden (MN / m
)
3
H — Depth below surface (m)
R Extraction ratio
Horizontal component of in-situ stress (MPa)
a. Dip of orebody from the horizontal (degrees)
2.1.1.4 Subsidence Formula

Whittaker & Singh (1979) developed Equation 8 and Equation 9 to determine barrier pillar stresses in
longwall mining situations. This formula assumes that the “goaf’ area behind the longwall is loaded by a
triangular roof mass sheared at an angle, “0”, from the edge of the barrier pillar as measured from the vertical.
The load outside the triangular roof region is assumed to be transferred to the barrier pillars.
9.817 w
c
2 0t0]
.{[(w+W).H— .W} (8)
1000w 4
for W/H < 2(tan)
14
o=9.81’yw.(wH+H
t
2 anØ) (9)
for WIH> 2(tan4))

where:
ap — Pillar stress (MPa)
= Density of overburden material (MN / m
)
3
4) = Angle of shear of roof strata at edge of longwall extraction measured from the
vertical (degrees)
w Width of barrier pillar (m)
W — Width of longwall extraction (m)
H = Depth of overburden material (m)
This technique is based on the research of King & Whittaker (1971) to determine pillar stress.
Whittaker & Singh (1979) use the estimated pillar stress and combine it with pillar strength estimation after
Salamon & Munro (1967) to determine a critical mining depth for a given width of barrier pillar.
2.12 Numerical Methods

Numerical modelling is the technique of applying numerical methods to solve problems that involve
the response of a rock mass to loading. The loading is generally a result of mining excavations, causing a
redistribution of stress within the rock mass. Brown (1987) states that “it is only rarely that analytical
solutions can be found to rock mechanics problems ofpractical concern”. This can be attributed to the fact
that boundaiy problems associated with complex mining geometries cannot be described by simple
mathematical functions. The governing equations are generally non-linear, the problem domain heterogeneous
and anisotropic, and the constitutive relations for the rock mass non-existent.
The use of numerical models can be two-fold:
• Numerical methods can be used to determine pillar stress distributions in the place of the tributary
area theory methods. This approach is used in situations where the conditions around a mining
scenario are sufficiently complex that tributary area theory cannot be relied upon to provide
adequate results.
• Numerical methods can also be used as a design tool. Failure criteria and strength parameters can
be utilized in various modelling programs and the predicted rock mass response can be analyzed.
Failure analysis can take place as either a post processing routine or by an interactive method.
Numerical modelling has distinct advantages over tributary area theory for the determination of pillar
stresses. Numerical modelling generally uses elastic theory to determine stress redistribution within a domain
of material of different elastic properties. It is possible to estimate stresses in complex mining geometries
15
where the tributary area theory formulae would not provide acceptable results. The use of numerical models
does however require that generalizations be made about the area of interest.
Listed below are the types of numerical models and programs that are available for use in the mine
design process. Details of each model type are discussed in Section 2.3. For more detailed information
regarding numerical modelling techniques, the reader is directed to Brown (1987) and Zienkiewicz (1977)
regarding boundary element and finite element numerical modelling techniques respectively.
The types of numerical models available include:
• finite element models

• finite difference models
• distinct element models
• fictitious force boundary element models
• displacement discontinuity boundary element models
• hybrid models that combine two or more of the above methods
2.1.3 Discussion Pillar Stress Determination

-
All of the methods for determining pillar stresses require that the premining (in-situ) state of stress
around excavations be known. In horizontally bedded deposits, only the vertical stress acting upon a seam need
be considered. This value can be approximated by the density of the overburden material multiplied by the
depth below surface. In areas that are mountainous or that have been subjected to glaciation, the overburden
stress value is less reliable. In inclined orebodies the values of the in-situ stresses become more difficult to
determine without resorting to in-situ stress measurement programs. Panseau’s (1982) and Hedley & Grant’s
(1972) inclined stress formulae use terms that account for the average in-situ horizontal stress. However, in
rock it must be recognized that the horizontal components of in-situ stress are generally not equal, and when
using Pariseau’s (1982) or Hedley & Grant’s (1972) inclined formulas, the user must consider the impact that
different horizontal stresses will have on the pillar stresses.
It must be recognized that the only technique for determining the in-situ stress magnitudes accurately
is to perform in-situ stress measurements. These tests, however, are expensive and can have variable success
rates (Pakalnis et al., 1985). This means that a number of tests must be performed in order to obtain reliable
results. These results subsequently make up the basic input data for all methods of computing the induced
pillar stresses.
16
2.2 PILLAR STRENGTH DETERMINATION
Pillar strength determination methods can be divided into three groups:
• empirical methods
• theoretical methods
• heuristic methods
Empirical methods rely on experience, combined with geotechnical terms related to pillar stability, to
develop a strength formula. Theoretical methods are derived mathematically to describe the expected
performance of mine pillars subject to loading for a given set of input variables. Heuristic methods can
generally be considered as “rule of thumb” techniques for designing pillars that may disregard many of the
valid input parameters related to pillar strength. In this section we will investigate each of these methods as
proposed by various authors for the estimation of pillar strength.
2.2.1 Empirical Design Methods

A number of empirical methods for pillar strength determination have been developed by various
researchers as follows:
• the “Linear Shape Effect Formula”

• the “Power Shape Effect Formula”
• the “Size Effect Formula”
• the Hock & Brown (1980) Empirical Rock mass Failure Criteria
These techniques relate pillar width, pillar height, intact rock strength, and factor of safety to estimate
pillar strength. The width of a pillar is measured normal to the major principal stress induced in the pillar and
the height is measured parallel to the major principal stress induced in the pillar. With the exception of Hock
& Brown (1980), these formulae all take the general form of Equation 10.
Wa
=K.[A+B(-)]
3
P (10)
where:
P — Pillar strength (Mpa, psi)
K — Term related to the strength of pillar material (Mpa, psi)
w — Pillar width (m, ft)
h — Pillar height (m, ft)
A, B, a, b = Empirically derived constants
17
This generalized equation has been divided into two well known empirical methods, “Size Effect
Formulae” and “Shape Effect Formulae”. The “Shape Effect Formula” uses empirical constants “a” and “b”
that are equal, meaning that the pillar strength is independent of pillar volume. The “Size Effect Formula”
uses empirical constants “a” and “b” that are unequal, meaning that for pillars of the same shape, the pillar
strength will decrease as pillar volume increases. This is after the work of various researchers who have shown
that with increasing sample size, there will be a corresponding decrease in strength. This is thought to be as a
result of an increase in the number of structural defects in larger sample specimens. Kostak & Bielenstein
(1971) showed that a decrease in strength resulted from an increase in sample size based upon laboratory sized
specimens. Bieniawsld (1975) and Denkhaus (1962) suggest that there is a critical sample size above which
the influence of added structural defects, with the exception of major structural features, will not have any
detrimental effect on pillar strength.
2.2.1.1 Linear Shape Effect Formula

The “Linear Shape Effect Formula” assumes that pillars of equal width / height ratios will have equal
strength, independent of the pillar volume, and that the relationship between pillar strength and pillar width /
height ratio will be of a linear fonn. The “Linear Shape Effect Formula” is defined by Equation 11.
P=K.[A÷B()] (11)
where:
P = Pillar strength (MPa)
K = Strength constant related to pillar material (MPa)
w = Pillar width (m)
h = Pillar height (m)
A, B = Empirically derived constants which when added, equal 1.0
The constants “A” and “B” determined by various researchers for this formula are listed in Table 1.
The work of Obert & Duvall (1967), Bieniawski (1975) and Hudyma (1988) is discussed in the following
sections.
2.2.1.1.1 Obert & Duvall (1967)

Obert & Duvall (1967) reported data from a series of compressive strength tests performed by Obert et
al. (1946) on specimen coal pillars of varying shapes (width / height ratios). Obert & Duvall (1967)
determined that Equation 12 could be used to estimate coal pillar strength. Obert & Duvall (1967) suggest that
the strength term “K” that should be used in this formula is the strength of a specimen of pillar material with a
width / height ratio of one. This formula does not include a term to account for the size effect on strength
18
Table 1: “Linear Shape Effect” emprirical constants, “A” and “B”, from various authors.
Source A B w/h range

Bunting (1911) 0.700 0.300 0.5-1.0
Obert & Duvall (1967) 0.778 0.222 0.5-2.0
Bieniawski (1968) 0.556 0.444 1.0-3.1
van Heerden (1974) 0.704 0.296 1.1-3.4
Bieniawski (1975) 0.64 0.36 1.0-3.1
Sorenson & Pariseau (1978) 0.693 0.307 0.5-2.0
Obert & DuvalI (1967) also made no recommendation about the size of the specimen to be used for the
determination of the “K” value, but they do however suggest that a factor of safety between two and four could
be used to account for the size effect on strength.
= K. [0.778 + 0.222(-.)] (12)
where:
P Pillar strength (MPa)
K — Unconfmed compressive strength of a cubical pillar specimen (MPa)
w - Pillar width (m)
2.2.1 .1.2 Bieniawski (1975)

Bieniawski (1975) concluded, based on tests of large scale coal specimens, that the strength of coal
pillars could be described by Equation 13. This formula was a result of performing in-situ tests on large scale
coal specimens over a period of eight years. A total of 66 in-situ tests were performed on samples that varied in
side length from 0.6 to 2.0 metres and had width I height ratios varying from 0.5 to 3.4. Bieniawski (1968)
originally proposed that empirical constants of 0.556 and 0.444, “A” and “B” respectively in Equation 11,
could be used to describe pillar strength.
P =K.[0.64+0.34()] (13)
where:
P — Pillar strength (MPa)
K — Unconfined compressive strength of a cubical pillar specimen 30 cm square (MPa)
19
OPEN STOPE RIB PILLAR DATA
0.60 -
0
0
/
0/
0.50 -
/
0 / / 0
+
+
/ /
0.40 - 0
00
U,
C.)
0 0
0.30
+
S 0
+ 0
a
0.20
a
10 0
o a a
0.10 -
/
0.00- I
0.0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.0 2.4
PILLAR WIDTH/PILLAR HEIGHT

0 STABLE + SLOUGHING 0 FAILURE
Figure 8: The Hudyma (1988) pillar stability graph showing the stable, transition, and failed zones (after
Hudyma, 1988).
2.2.1.1 .3 Hudyma (1988)

Hudyma (1988) presented a method entitled the “Pillar Stability Graph Method” for determining the
strength of open stope rib pillars based upon data derived from Canadian hard rock underground mining
operations. Data was collected on 47 case histories of pillars that had been classified as being either stable,
sloughing, or failed. The geometric data along with predicted pillar loads were related to derive the “Pillar
Stability Graph”. Three distinct regions were defined based on pillar observations as being either failed,
sloughing, or stable. Hudyma’s (1988) “Pillar Stability Graph” is presented in Figure 8 and is discussed in
greater detail in Chapter 5. The valid range of pillar width / height ratios for this method is 0.5 to 1.4.
2.2.1.2 Power Shape Effect Formula

The “Power Shape Effect Formula” assumes that the strength of a pillar is governed by the square
root of the width / height ratio of the pillar. The formula is defined by the Equation 14. This relationship has
been proposed by Zern (1926), Holland (1956), and Hazen & Artler (1976).
20
P
=
5 K.Ji (14)
where:
Pillar strength (MPa)
K — Unconfined compressive strength of a 30 cm cubical pillar specimen (MPa)
h — Pillar height (m)
2.2.1.3 Effective Pillar Width

In most of the cases listed in the previous sections, strengths have been assessed from pillars that are
square in plan cross-section. Several authors have suggested that rectangular pillars will have a higher strength
than their square counterparts because of increased confinement from the long dimension, in plan, of the pillar.
The proposed modifications to the “Shape Effect Formula” to account for this increase in confinement over a
square pillar are listed below. In all cases the pillar width in the strength formulae is replaced by an effective
pillar width term.
Sheorey & Singh (1974) proposed that the effective pillar width to be used in place of the width term
in the shape effect formula be the average of the length of the two pillar sides. This work was based on the
testing of small scale samples of various rectangular dimensions. Wagner (1980) and Stacey & Page (1986)
both proposed that the width term could be replaced by an effective pillar width term defined by Equation 15.
We=4. (15)
R
where:
We — Effective pillar width (m)
Cross-sectional area of pillar (m
)
2
R = Pillar circumference (m)
These methods may have merit for extrapolating the strength of a square pillar to a rectangular pillar,
however it is evident that there must be an upper limit on the increase in strength that can be attributed to an
increase in pillar side length. Wagner’s (1980) and Stacey & Page’s (1986) approach to effective pillar width
has an upper limit of two times the minimum pillar width, while Sheorey & Singh’s (1984) approach has an
upper limit of one half the length of the long side of the pillar for very long pillars, making it the least
conservative for strength estimation. Salamon (1983) states that Wagner’s (1980) formula is “putforth only
tentatively at this stage” and that “Limited experience appears to suggest that it does give a reasonable
estimate of the effective pillar width”.
21
2.2.1.4 Hoek & Brown (1980) Failure Criteria
Hoek & Brown (1980) have proposed an empirical strength criteria for rock masses as given in
Equation 16. Hock & Brown (1980) propose that the influence of structural defects and pillar volume can be
quantified through the use of rock mass classification parameters. These classifications result in empirical
parameters “m” and “s” for a given rock type, and are used in Equation 16 to detennine the corresponding
rock mass strength. This value is then compared to the calculated pillar stress and a factor of safety can then be
determined. Table 2 lists the values of the empirical rock mass constants ‘em” and “s” for various rock types
and rock mass classification ratings (Hock & Brown, 1988). Figure 9 illustrates the conceptual transition of a
rock mass from an intact condition to a heavily jointed condition.
‘i =o
+
3 4[(m.a.ai)+(s.a)] (16)
where:
1
a — Major principal stress (MPa)
3
a — Minor principal stress (MPa)
o Unconfined compressive strength of intact rock mass material (MPa)
m ,s — Empirically derived constants based on rock mass quality of pillar material
Hock & Brown (1980) developed pillar strength curves based upon this strength criteria and the
distribution of stresses inside modelled pillars. Figure 10 is a plot of the Hock & Brown (1980) pillar strength
curves for igneous crystalline rock. The stress results were determined using two-dimensional boundary
element modelling methods. Modelled pillar failure was assumed to have occurred when the average factor
underground
excavation
—‘
- -
_—_.
intact rock
single discontinuity
two discontinuities
several discontinuities
rock mass
Figure 9: Idealized illustration of the transition from intact rock to a heavily jointed rock mass with
increasing sample size (after Hock & Brown, 1980).
22
Table 2: Approximate relationship between rock mass quality and material constants (after Hock &
Brown, 1988).
Disturbed rock mass m and a values undisturbed rock mass m and a values
..J
)<
< “ ‘
EMPIRICAL FAILURE CRITERION > 0 0 >
<.8 0< E LLJ.O
o.Lu
0 — — 0
2
U<.(
oj major principaleffectivestress
= 00:9°’
uI—’_
.
>‘.0
ç)_u, .J
= minor principal effective stress t.j . 0 < 8 0 <
O 0.I-• UJO
o = uniaxial compressive strength
.
—
0 .
of intact rock, and 0 6 — <M

m and $ are empirical constants. 0 6
gg
C
<Zs 2
8
x. zou. 0’-
ujuJ8
ot>I
Iu> <.‘
<uJ °.8 <u,0,
INTACT ROCK SAMPLES

Laboratory sizespecimens free m 7.00 10.00 15.00 17.00 25.00
from discontinuities $ 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
CSIR rating: RMR = 100 m 7.00 10.00 15.00 17.00 25.00
NGI rating: Q = 500 s 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
VERY GOOD QUALITY ROCK MASS
Tightly interlocking undisturbed rock m 2.40 3.43 5.14 5.82 8.56
with unweathered joints at 1 to 3m. a 0.082 0.082 0.082 0.082 0.082
CSIR rating: RMR = 85 m 4.10 5.85 8.78 9.95 14.63
NGI rating: Q = 100 a 0.189 0.189 0.189 0.189 0.189
GOOD QUALITY ROCK MASS

Fresh to slightly weathered rock, slightly m 0.575 0.821 1.231 1.395 2.052
disturbed with joints at 1 to 3m. $ 0.00293 0.00293 0.00293 0.00293 0.00293
CSIR rating: RMR = 65 m 2.006 2.865 4.298 4.871 7.163
NGI rating: Q = 10 s 0.0205 0.0205 0.0205 0.0205 0.0205
FAIR QUALITY ROCK MASS

Several sets of moderately weathered m 0.128 0.183 0.275 0.311 0.458
joints spaced at 0.3 to lm. a 0.00009 0.00009 0.00009 0.00009 0.00009
CSIR rating: RMR = 44 m 0.947 1.353 2.030 2.301 3.383
NGI rating: Q = 1 a 0.001 98 0.00198 0.00198 0.001 98 0.00198
POOR QUALITY ROCK MASS

Numerous weathered joints at 30.500mm, m 0.029 0.041 0.061 0.069 0.102
some gouge. Clean compacted waste rock s 0.000003 0.000003 0.000003 0.000003 0.000003
CSIR rating: RMR = 23 m 0.447 0.639 0.959 1.087 1.598
NGI rating: Q = 0.1 a 0.00019 0.00019 0.00019 0.00019 0.00019
VERY POOR QUALITY ROCK MASS

Numerous heavily weathered joints spaced m 0.007 0.010 0.015 0.017 0.025
<50mm with gouge. Waste rock with fines. S 0.0000001 0.0000001 0.0000001 0.0000001 0.0000001
CSIR rating: RMR = 3 m 0.219 0.313 0.469 0.532 0.782
NGI rating: Q = 0.01 a 0.00002 0.00002 0.00002 0.00002 0.00002
of safety across the center of the pillar fell below 1.0 based upon the modelled stresses. Hock & Brown (1980)
propose that for a given pillar width / height ratio and a rock mass rating, the average pillar strength
normalized to the unconfined compressive strength of intact pillar material can be determined.
The pillar strength curves presented by Hock & Brown (1980) are, as stated, for igneous crystalline
rock. In order to use this technique for differing rock types, a series of curves utilizing the correct values of
23
“rn” and “s” should be developed. In an attempt by the author to reproduce the Hoek & Brown (1980) pillar
curves for differing rock types, it was determined that the construction of the pillar strength curves appears to
be flawed. This is discussed below.
Equation 16, where for a given rock type “rn” and “s” are constant, can be divided into 3 generalized
terms as follows:
(i) =03
(ii) 3
4m.o.o
(iii) =
At pillar width / height ratios of less than 0.6, it can be shown that the strength will be controlled by
term (iii). As pillar width / height ratio increases, the ratio between term (ii) and term (iii) gradually increases
until, at width / height ratios above 1.0, the pillar strength is controlled predominantly by term (ii). Term (i)
has negligible (< 5%) effect on strength. This can be generalized as follows:
• A pillar with a width I height ratio of less than one will have strength that is approximately a
function of the addition of o, and 03.
• A pillar with a width / height ratio greater than one will have strength that is approximately a
function the square root of the multiplication of o and 03.
Considering the strength of a pillar with a width / height ratio greater than 1.0, it can be seen that,
from Equation 16 and term (ii) above, strength is controlled by a function of the square root of o and the
square root of 03, the minor principal stress (which, based upon pillar geometry, is a function of applied pillar
stress, of). The pillar strength as determined from Figure 10, however, is a function of o and the pillar width
/ height ratio only. It is unclear as to why the pillar curves are constructed using o, and not the square root of
the o, and why the minor principal stress ,03 , is excluded.

Since the pillar curves are a function of o, only term (iii) can be accurately represented and this term
ignores the influence of confinement. Hock & Brown (1980) show that the confining stress, 03, in a pillar
increases with the applied stress, a. Using Figure 10, the strength for a pillar of a given width / height ratio
will be constant, dependent only on o, regardless of the applied pillar stresses (or depth below surface). The is
in direct contrast to Equation 16 which clearly shows that as stress (03) increases, so to will the calculated
strength (os).
A second point to note with this method is that the unconfined compressive strength is included in two
places if the CSIR-RMR rock mass classification system (Bieniawski, 1973) is used:
• the CSIR-RMR (Bieniawski, 1973) strength parameter

• the unconfined compressive strength normalizing term
24
0
3.0
a
0)
0 Intact
.0
01
C 2.5
4)
0
C
4)
0)
4) m 8.5. s 0.1
0.
E
0
I.;
0
x
I,
.0 Good quality rock mass

01
C — 1.7, S — 0.004
4,
Fair quality rock mass

C,
rn 0.34, s — 0.0001
Poor quality 000
k mass
a 0.00001
rn 0.09, 5 —
SC
01
C
4,
>
0 3
Pillar width/height Wp/h
Figure 10: Hock & Brown (1980) pillar strength curves for igneous crystalline rock (after Hock & Brown,
1980).
A lower unconfined compressive strength will result in a lower RMR, which will place the pillar on a
weaker pillar line. The pillar strength will then be reduced again when normalizing the pillar strength to the
unconfined compressive strength on the vertical scale on the pillar strength graph.
There is no report of this technique being used with success to design pillars in literature. Page &
Brennen (1982) report that this method approximated observed pillar strength for a good quality rock mass for
pillar with width / height ratios of 0.7.
2.2.1.5 The Size Effect Formula

Empirical size effect strength formulae have been developed by a number of researchers in the form of
Equation 17. The effect of this type of formula is that as pillar size increases, the strength of pillars of equal
shape will decrease.
(17)
where:
= Pillar strength (MPa, psi)
K — Strength term related to pillar material (MPa, psi)
w Pillar width (m, ft)
25
h — Pillar height (m, ft)
a, b — Empirically derived constants
A number of researchers have proposed strength formulae in this form and the values of the empirical
constants suggested by each author are presented in Table 3.
The methods presented in Table 3 represent the accumulated knowledge with respect to pillar design
based upon the “Size Effect Formula”. The work of Salamon & Munro (1967), Hedley & Grant (1972) and
Sheorey et al. (1987) is discussed in the following sections. It must be noted that due to the dimensionally
unbalanced nature of the “Size Effect Formula” the pillar width and height must be in feet and the strength
,
must be in pounds I square inch. In order to convert this formula to SI units, the “K” term must be reduced to
compensate for the dimensionally unbalanced conversion, as a result of the differing exponents, of feet to
metres in the width / height term.
Table 3: “Size Effect Formulae” empirical constants, “a” and “b”, from various authors.
Source a b
Steart (1954) 0.5 1.0
Holland-Gaddy (1962) 0.5 1.0
Greenwald et al. (1939) 0.5 0.833
Hedley & Grant (1972) 0.5 0.75
Salamon & Munro (1967) 0.46 0.66
Bieniawski (1968) 0.16 0.55
Sheorey et al. (1987) 0.5 0.86
(for slender pillars)
2.2.1.5.1 Salamon & Munro (1967)

Salamon & Munro (1967) conducted an investigation into the strength of square pillars in South
African coal mines. Questionnaires were sent to mine operators requesting observations of current workings
and areas of collapsed workings. An observation represented a mine or portion of a mine, where mining
dimensions were essentially constant and pillars were square in cross-section. The database consisted of 125
case histories, of which 98 cases were classified as “stable” and 27 cases were classified as “collapsed”. This
data is presented in Table 4. Pillar loads were calculated using tributary area theory. Statistical analysis on
this data yielded the empirical strength constants presented in Table 5 for the “Size Effect Formula”
.
1
The benefit of this work is that the data used to determine the strength relationship was obtained from
actual mine pillar case histories as reported by mine operators. It should be noted that Salamon & Munro
The pillar width and pillar height are presented here in imperial units because of the dimensionally unbalanced nature of the Size Effect
Formula” as discussed in Section 2.3.1.5.
26
(1967) used one coal strength constant “K” for all of the pillar case histories in the database. This value was
determined statistically from all of the case histories in the database without reference to the actual intact coal
strength at each mining operation.
Salamon & Munro (1967) calculated that the average factor of safety for stable pillars was 1.6 based
upon the histogram presented in Figure 11. Budavari (1983) reported that South African coal mines almost
exclusively use the Salamon & Munro (1967) formula with a factor of safety of 1.6 to design pillar layouts.
Table 4: Salamon & Munro (1967) database summary for compiled case histories.
Group Stable Collapsed

Number Cases 98 27
Depth (feet) 65-720 70-630
Pillar Height (feet) 4-16 5-18
Pillar Width (feet) 9-70 11-52
Extraction Ratio 37-89 45-91
Pillar Width / Height ratio 1.2-8.8 0.9-3.6
TableS: “Size Effect” empirical constants determined by Salamon & Munro (1967).
K(strength) a b
1322 psi 0.6609 0.4590
2.2.1.5.2 Hedley & Grant (1972)

Hedley & Grant (1972) proposed a pillar design method based upon data obtained from uranium mines
in the Elliot Lake district of Ontario, Canada. The database consists of 28 pillar case histories (23 stable
pillars, two partially failed pillars and three failed pillars). It was proposed that the pillar strength
,
relationship could be approximated by a “Size Effect Formula” described by Equation 18.
(18)
2
where:
P Pillar strength (psi)
K Strength of 30 cm cubic sample
0.7.UCS (50 mm diameter. sample)
179 MPa (26,000 psi) for Elliot Lake rocks.
w Pillar width (ft)
h Pillar height (ft)
2
T he pillar width and pillar height are presented here in imperial units because of the dimensionally unbalanced nature of the “Size Effect
Formuia’ as discussed in Section 2.3.1.5.
27
12 - Key half the stable cases are most
densely concentrated in range R
collapsed
cases lower limit of R 1 = 131
F
(0 -
mean of R Fm 1.57
stable cases
r
a upper limit of R F,, = 1.88
5)
I 8
U
U
0
0 6
U
aV
4
V
U.
2
0 0.5 1.0 I 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5

F
Safety factor
Figure 11: Histogram showing frequencies of intact pillar performance, and pillar failure, for South African
coal mines (after Salamon & Munro, 1967).
Pillar stress was determined using the tributary area theory with modifications to account for the
addition of horizontal in-situ stresses as described in Section 2.1.1.3. This is because the Elliot Lake uranium
mines occur in dipping orebodies. In-situ measurements of stress were made at two mines in order to verify the
use of tributary area theory. The authors determined that the average value of measured stress and tributary
area theory compared favourably, however there was a wide scatter in the individual measurements. Hedley &
Grant (1972) state that “.. the measurements themselves cannot be taken as accurate values and can vary by ±
50 per cent”.
This work represents one of the few instances where hard rock pillar data has been used to develop a
pillar strength formula. Figure 12 and Figure 13 are Hedley & Grant’s (1972) plots of pillar stress versus depth
and extraction ratio method and pillar stress versus calculated pillar strength using Equation 18. Hedley &
Grant (1972) have used a “Size Effect Formula”, which they stated was based upon the work of Salamon &
Munro (1967), to derive their strength relationship. The development of a “Size Effect Formula” for pillar
strength, however, requires a database that contains pillars of a wide range of sizes. The pillars that make up
the Hedley & Grant (1972) database are all of similar size and therefore cannot fully justify the use of a “Size
Effect Formula”.
It should also be noted that this method is used in underground hard rock mine design, yet the
database contains only three failed pillar case histories. The use of only three failed pillars to develop a
strength relationship leaves the potential for a wide margin of error.
28
5000 /. Extraction
Dipd.g 80
50 6065 70 75
0
70
20
30 00
40 85
E3 1.10
90
10 ‘0
4doo lox Below 200

Depth
idoo a sOoo toxo isàoo 2000 25000
Surface ft Pillar Stress psi
Figure 12: Hedley & Grant’s (1972) method for the determination of pillar stress (after Hedley & Grant,
1972).
Z
SF 1.0 SF 1.3
• Failed Pillars SF 15
o Partially Foiled PillarS
o Stable Pillars
75000 SF=Safety Factor
SF2.0
UNSTALE : TRANSITIONAL STA&E SF 2.5

1
10000
0
a 0 °SF3.0
a.
.
0
Q 0 0
0 o SF3.5
a
E
0
5000
0
0 5000 roóoo ‘,zboo 20000 25000

Estimated Pillar Strength psi.
Figure 13: Hedley & Grant’s (1972) estimation of pillar stresses and strengths (after Hedley & Grant,
1972).
29
2.2.1 .5.3 Sheorey et al. (1987)
Sheorey et al. (1987) investigated stable and failed pillars for coal mines in India and proposed an
empirical strength formula as presented in Equation 19. The database is comprised of 23 failed and 20 stable
pillar observations. They also proposed a second strength formula for slender pillars (pillar width / height ratio
less than 4) as presented in Equation 20.
Pillar stresses for the majority of the pillar case histories used to derive these formulae were calculated
using tributary area theory. Numerical modelling was used to calculate pillar stresses for the remaining pillar
case histories.
0.27a H w
(19)
= h 0.36
Pr = 0.27a. (20)
86
h°•
where:
= Pillar strength (MPa)
— Unconfined compressive strength of a 25 mm cube of pillar material
w — Pillar width (m)
H — Depth below surface (m)
2.2.1.6 Discussion Empirical Strength Formulae

-
An advantage of empirical strength formulae is that they are generally based on observations that
incorporate full size mine pillars. They do not, however, make any attempt to explain the mechanism of pillar
loading and pillar failure. In the next section, theoretical strength determination methods for mine pillars that
have been suggested by various researchers are investigated.
222 Theoretical Design Methods

A number of researchers have presented theoretical formulae to estimate the strength of mine pillars
that will be covered in the following section. Potvin (1985) states that Wilson’s (1972) confined core method is
the only method to have been used to design pillars in Canadian mining operations.
2.2.2.1 Wilson’s (1972) Confined Core Method

Wilson’s (1972) confined core method attempts to evaluate mathematically the primary factors that
influence pillar strength and is designed to be used to determine the strength of wide pillars (width I height
ratio greater than 4.5). Wilson (1972) states that when moving from the pillar boundary to the pillar core,
transition from yielded zone will progress into an undisturbed elastic zone towards the pillar core. His
proposed relationship is given in Equations 21 and 22.
30
1
•ln() (21)
h 4tan()(tfl(1)) 0
= 1 +sin(Ø)
tan(13) (22)
1—sin(4))
3
where:
Y = Depth of yield zone into pillar from ribside (ft)
h Seam height (ft)
v
0 — Maximum pillar stress which occurs at the boundary between the
yield zone and pillar core (psi)
00 Unconfined compressive strength of pillar material (psi)
tan(13) = Triaxial stress coefficient
4) — Angle of internal friction of the pillar material (degrees)
Wilson (1972) develops equations for pillar load based on the above hypothesis for wide pillars and
slender pillars. Slender pillars are defined as those meeting the criteria defined in Equation 23. When this
criteria is met, there will be no confined pillar core and no elastic triaxial zone. Equations 24 and 25 are
strength formulae for wide and slender square pillars respectively. Wilson (1972) also developed similar
formulae for rectangular and long pillars which are not included here.
wcO.003.hH (23)
L = 4pH . (w — 0.003 • whH + 0.000003. h

)
H
2 (24)
L=444.p—-- (25)
where:
L = Pillar load (tons)
p Average density of rock (tons / ft
)
3
H — Depth of cover (ft)
w — Width of pillar (ft)
h — Height of pillar or seam (ft)
It should be noted that the slender pillar equation, Equation 25, is a variation of the “Shape Effect
Formula”. By moving “w
” from the right to the left side of the equation, we generate a stress term in place of
2
the load, “L”. We are left with a “width I height” term and a density term on the right side of the equation
which is in the form of a “Shape Effect Formula”.
Imperial units are presented here as originally presented by Wilson (1972).
31
2.2.2.2 Coates (1965)
Coates (1965) proposed a method for predicting pillar loads based upon relating the statically
indeterminate deflection of pillar walls to the increase in stress due to mining. This method was applied to rib
pillar mining and involves ten major variables and predicts lower pillar stresses than tributary area theory.
This method appears impractical since it seems that for pillar wall deflection to be measurable, the pillar
material would have to be intact and behave elastically. Jointed rock masses would more than likely degrade
progressively such that deflection would be immeasurable. Agapito (1972) states that Coates & Ignatieff (1966)
appeared unable to verify this approach in practice.
2.2.2.3 Panek (1979)

Panek (1979) developed a general strength equation for the load bearing capacity of rock pillars of
different cross-sectional shapes. The goal of his work was to develop a means of using laboratory compression
tests to estimate the strength of full scale mine pillars. Panek (1979) derives an expression for pillar strength of
brittle material that is expressed as a mathematical product of the following factors:
• a size effect
• a shape effect
• a function of the mechanical properties (deformability, joint spacing, and friction) of the pillar
• a function of the mechanical properties (deformability, joint spacing, and friction) of the floor and
roof materials
Panek (1979) deals solely with the maximum resistance offered by a pillar to a specific load and makes
no reference to the method with which the pillar load is to be determined. Panek (1979) presented a formula of
the general form as described by Equation 26.
= )C6(L
(26)
5
E w h w Es Es 5 ;Vj ‘Or Vf Vs d2 d3
where:
h,w,b Pillar dimensions height, width and length (m)
3
2
,
1
d Representative parameters of the frequency distribution of the defects (joints,
cleats) in the mined seam
Modulus of elasticity of the seam, roof, floor material (GPa)
Poison’s ratio of seam, roof, floor material
JLsir.s/r Coefficient of friction between seam and roof, between seam and floor
1(0 = Maximum resistance of pillar to compressive force (MPa)
S — Pillar compressive stress at maximum resistance (MPa)
— Constants
32
Panek (1979) proposed that this form of equation could be used to introduce new variables into the
pillar strength formula if required. In order to utilize this equation in practice, Panek (1979) suggests using the
theory of similitude and that Equation 27 equation would be used to determine the pillar strength.
d
1 1
c w 2
c
r Cr, [(—) (—) .. . .
I predicted
[)jpredzced w h
.
—
(2 7 )
[S]known — CIICI 7C
]known
w h
Equation 27 would be used to relate the results obtained from testing a small sample, known, in a steel
platened testing machine to the actual large scale pillar, predicted, strength. In a response to this method,
Sheorey (1980) suggested that two additional terms, time dependence of strength and the influence of mine
environment (moisture and weathering), could be included in this equation. There is no reference available in
literature that suggests that this technique has been used in practice.
2.2.2.4 Grobbelaar (1970)

Grobbelaar (1970) proposed a theoretical method of determining the strength of coal pillars. He
proposed the conversion of the strength of small cubes of pillar material to larger cubical specimens using a
graph that related the normalized strength of the pillar to the normalized cube side length along with the
number and the standard deviation of the number of flaws in the larger cubical specimen. He also postulates
that the strength of non-cubical samples is dependent on the properties of the pillar material and the friction
between the pillar and the surrounding rock. He states that for most mine pillars the friction component at the
pillar end is sufficient to implement the derived theoretical expression. The resulting expression for pillar
strength for a square pillar is given by Equation 28.
— (_WD)
D
2
(Cw+W
) D_,V
avGuW2(C+D2(D_y)_WD1) 28)
where:
= Average stress on the pillar at failure (MPa)
— Strength of a cubical pillar specimen of height equal to the actual height of the
pillar (m)
W — Width / height ratio of the pillar
C k *k
1 2 where k
1 is the ratio of lateral stress (developed within the pillar) to the
vertical stress and equal to k
2
D = logC
33
Grobbelaar (1970) states that for a pillar that has an elastic core and peripheral zone of fractured rock,
a sample calculation shows that the average stress at which failure will propagate into the pillar core is a
function of ten parameters, five of which are material constants. Grobbelaar (1970) states that this approach
corresponds to the strength measured on model pillars comprised of sand, coal, sandstone, and rocksalt but has
yet to be verified by case studies. It should be noted that Grobbelaar (1970) is attempting to determine stresses
in pillars that have a wide cross-section and can be considered to be under triaxial stress conditions within the
pillar core.
2.2.2.5 Discussion Theoretical Sfrength Formulae

-
Theoretical strength formula have been derived by a number of researchers. They have, however, not
been verified in practice. As mentioned previously, Potvin (1985) states that in a survey of Canadian mining
operations, only Wilson’s (1972) confined core method had been used. .The benefit of this theoretical work,
however, is that it may provide us with insight into the mechanism of pillar loading and failure.
2.23 Heuristic Methods

A number of heuristic pillar design methods have been used in the past. These “rule of thumb”
methods include the “Mines Inspector Formula” (Ashley, 1930), the “Holland Formula” (Holland, 1964),
Morrison et al. (1961), and the “Barrier Pillar Formula” (King & Whittaker, 1971). These approaches
oversimplify the pillar design process and will be presented, but not be discussed in detail.
2.2.3.1 Mines Inspector Formula

Ashley (1930) presented the Equation 29 based on experiments on Pennsylvania coal beds and
assumes that an arch equal to half of the panel width be stable. No reference is made to pillar material or
overburden density although it is safe to assume that this method was designed to be used for coal pillars. As
the formula shows, this is designed to dimension pillars but makes no assessment of pillar strength.
w=20+4.h+0.1.H (29)
4
where:
w — Pillar width (ft)
h Pillar height (ft)
H Depth of overburden cover (ft)
These units axe presented in imperial as originally presented by Ashley (1930).

4
34
2.2.3.2 Holland (1964) Formula
Potvin (1985) reported on the work of Holland (1964). The Holland Formula is a dimensioning
formula for pillar design based on convergence studies by Belinski & Borecki (1964). This is another
simplistic method for pillar design in coal mines.
= log(2W
)
2
w=15.h or
K log(e)
where:
w — Width of barrier pillar (m)
h — Thickness of pillar (m)
2
W Estimated convergence on high stress side of pillar (mm)
K — Constant
- 0.09 if caving after mining is permitted
- 0.08 if strip packs are built
- 0.07 if hydraulic stowage is used
2.2.3.3 Morrison et al. (1961)

Potvin (1985) reported the work of Morrison et al. (1961). The authors presented an overly simplistic
formula for barrier pillar dimensioning based upon research into mine safety in Canada as follows:
w=.Hfor H< 1200 m (31)
where:
w = Width of pillar (m)
H = Depth of overburden cover (m)
2.2.3.4 Barrier Pillar Formula

King & Whittaker (1971) developed this rule of thumb approach for the design of barrier pillars and
again is a simplistic pillar design method.
w=-’-.H+4.5 (32)
10
where:
w — Width of pillar (m)
H = Depth of overburden cover (m)
35
2.3 NUMERICAL MODELLING TECHNIQUES
Numerical modelling techniques are able to determine stress redistribution around mine openings
within a triaxial stress field employing either two-dimensional or three-dimensional methods. This alternative
to tributary area theory for complex geometrical or geological environments makes pillar stress determination
more accurate.
Numerical modelling is a technique that uses mathematical formulae to solve stress related problems.
It is used in many fields of engineering and has gained considerable acceptance. Models are becoming
increasingly complex, yet there are limitations on what can be analyzed. At the heart of any numerical model
is the numerical code and the algorithm that define the model. These are fixed in the solution of mining
related problems. These codes are coupled with input data to generate results, which will be poor if the input
data is not valid. Input data consists of in-situ stress conditions (either measured or estimated), mining
geometry, rock mass characteristics, and elastic constants. Most models require making simplified
assumptions, such as homogeneous, isotropic, and elastic rock mass conditions, which is not the case in
mining.
Even with the generalizations that are necessary to perform numerical modelling, the results obtained
will still be of higher quality than those which might be estimated using tributary area theory. Figure 14
illustrates the conceptual models we can attempt to solve using numerical modelling techniques. The scope of
this thesis is not to perform an in-depth analysis of numerical modelling codes and techniques. It is however
useful to discuss the types of models and their applicability to mining conditions.
Continuous planes
of weakness
L_______JL
b (C) di
Figure 14: Conceptual models relating rock structure and rock response to excavation (after Brown, 1987).
2.3.1 Pillar Design Using Numerical Models

There are a two ways that the results from numerical modelling programs can be used to design pillars
in underground mines. The results can be used to predict pillar stresses, or a failure criteria can be
incorporated to predict the extent of failed areas. One of the inherent problems is the difficulty of knowing
36
with confidence what is happening within the rock mass. Observations of conditions at the boundary are easy
to obtain, but just how far that condition extends into the rock mass is difficult to assess. These points should
be kept in mind while reading the following section on the use of numerical modelling results.
2.3.2 Types of Modelling Methods

Brown (1987) divides current modelling methods applicable to mining into four separate groups:
• differential continuum methods

• integral methods
• differential discontinuum methods
• hybrid or linked methods (that combine integral and differential methods)
2.3.2.1 Continuum Methods

The continuum methods are the “Finite Element” and the “Finite Difference” methods. Continuum
methods require that mathematical and physical approximations be made throughout the region of interest (the
problem domain). Finite difference methods utilize approximate numerical solutions for the problems
governing equations at an array of points within the problem domain. This gives an approximate solution to an
exact problem. The finite element method discretizes the entire problem domain area into a series of discrete
elements which provide a physical approximation to the continuity of displacements and stresses within the
continuum. The governing equations for the problem are solved exactly at nodes at which adjacent elements
connect. This results in an exact solution for a differential approximation to the problem. A major limitation
of the application of finite element methods to exterior problems is the fact that an arbitrary outer boundary to
the problem must be defined. The time requirements for continuum methods for data preparation and solution
time can be extremely large if the problem domain is extended sufficiently such that far field stress conditions
are satisfied. Figure 15 illustrates a finite element problem construction. For an in-depth discussion of finite
element methods, the reader is referred to Zienkiewicz (1977).
2.3.2.2 Integral Methods

Integral methods replace the physical problem to be modelled with an equivalent solution using
“fictitious forces” and “fictitious displacements” on a boundary. The two integral methods used in rock
mechanics, which are referred to collectively as boundary element methods, are the “Boun&#y Element”
method and the “Displacement Discontinuity” method. Figure 16 illustrates the conceptual difference between
finite element and boundary element problem construction. Figure 16 (a) represents a finite element problem
that has a finite boundary and problem domain defined by elements. Figure 16 (b) illustrates a boundary
element problem where the problem boundary is infinite and boundary elements are utilized on the excavation
boundaries only. Figure 17 and Figure 18 give examples of the boundary element problem formulation.
37
(a)
t (b) (c)
Uf fQ
4- -
0
k/’%’ Uk
4- -, /etqr
4- -4
— S..
‘Jr ‘Jr
y
Figure 15: Development of a finite element model of a continuum problem, and specification of element
geometry and loading for a constant strain, triangular finite element (after Brady & Brown,
1985).
Figure 19 shows example output from a modelled pillar using two-dimensional boundary element modelling.
The contour values are for the major and minor principal stresses developed within the pillar. Figure 20
illustrates a simplified three-dimensional boundary element problem defmition.
2.3.2.3 Discontinuum Methods

Discontinuum methods are used where it is not possible to replace a rock mass with an equivalent
continuum material. Problems involve a finite number of elements of which the ratio of element size to
problem domain is such that an equivalent material cannot be used. The most powerful and versatile method
available is the distinct element method originally developed by Cundall (1971) as a means of modelling
progressive failure of a rock slope. This method utilizes a dynamic relaxation technique to solve Newton’s laws
of motion to determine the forces and the displacements of elements that result during the large scale
progressive deformation of discontinuities. Figure 21 illustrates the distinct element method.
2.3.2.4 Hybrid Methods

Hybrid methods combine different numerical methods to solve mining problems. Boundary element
methods are linked to finite element or distinct element methods. The problem domain around mine openings
is discretized and defined using either a distinct element or fmite element method and the exterior of the
problem domain is defined using the boundary element method. Hybrid methods make it possible to resolve
stresses in close proximity to mine openings in detail while maintaining boundary conditions using boundary
element methods.
38
Free surface
F,n,le
botindary
Infànite
boundary
(a) (b)
Figure 16: Simplified finite element and boundary element problem formulation for the same excavation
geometry (after Brown, 1987).
(a) (b) (c)
4— S
s L.
.
L ‘
4-
“ .
-
. h(S) — —t(S)
. - ...,
4- ,
Figure 17: Superposition scheme demonstrating that generation of an excavation is mechanically equivalent
to introducing a set of traction’s on a surface in a continuum (after Brady & Brown, 1985).
(a)
(c) q3
=+i 3
,y
3j(x
)
,) )
1
((S)
Y2)
-
,
1
(x Yi)
Figure 18: Surface, element and load distribution description for development of a quadratic, isoparametric,
indirect boundary element formulation (after Brady & Brown, 1985).
39
Figure 19: Principal stress distribution in a rib pillar defined by a ratio of pillar width to height of 1.0. The
contour values are given by the ratio of major and minor principal stresses to the average pillar
stress. Plane strain analysis for uniformly distributed vertical applied stress (after Hoek &
Brown, 1980).
2.3.3 Choice of Method

The choice of which numerical method to use to solve stress related problems in mining depends upon
the desired results. It is the author’s opinion that finite element methods may provide a result that has a high
degree of accuracy, however the required input parameters are difficult to assess commensurate with this
accuracy. lii addition, the amount of time required to define and solve finite element problems can be
extremely large in relation to the solution time required for boundary element methods. It is the author’s
opinion that the boundary element method is the most desirable numerical method in mining situations where
general stress solutions are desired. Boundary element techniques are currently used extensively and
successfully to solve mining related stress problems.
40
1
R
L_
Figure 20: An idealized sketch showing the principle of numerical modelling of underground excavations
(after Hudyma, 1988).
(a) (b) (c)

new
‘ft
n2
Figure 21: Normal and shear modes of interaction between distinct elements (after Brady & Brown, 1985).
41
2.3.4 Pillar Failure Assessment using Numerical Models
It is possible to utilize failure criteria in numerical modelling methods. Two forms of failure
assessment are possible, post processing and interactive. Post processing methods involve applying a failure
criteria after the solution of the model to assess whether modelled failure has occurred or not. The two most
common failure criteria applied are the Mohr-Coulomb and the Hock & Brown (1980) methods. A drawback
of using post-processing methods that the stresses are not shed from the failed portions of the model while
processing is taking place. As a result, the modelling results may not accurately reflect actual failed conditions.
Figure 22 is an example of a modelling session where a failure criteria was applied to a pillar mining problem
to predict failure (Brady, 1977). Figure 22 shows that as pillar size was reduced, the predicted failure zone
extended across the entire pillar width. The failure criteria used was based on the work of Murrell (1965).
The interactive method has been used in displacement discontinuity models (NFOLD, ref. Maconochie
et al., 1981) whereby non-linear elements are used. Model elements are assigned a peak and post-peak strength
as illustrated in Figure 23. The numerical model is solved through an iterative process. Elements that have
modelled stresses that exceed the peak strength of the element are assigned lower stress values during each
model iteration, to a minimum value of the post-peak strength value. The iterative process continues until the
model reaches equilibrium. Figure 24 and Figure 25 show the stress results along with failed areas for a
modelling sessions performed, using displacement discontinuity methods, by Maconochie et al. (1981) and
Bywater et al. (1983) respectively.
2.3.5 Discussion Numerical Methods

-
Numerical methods provide us with a number of codes that can be used to solve stress related mining
problems. These codes have an advantage over the simplified assumptions made with tributary area theory,
resulting in the ability to analyze complex mining geometries in three dimensions. It must be recognized
however, that numerical models are not a panacea for all stress related mining problems. This is due to the
difficulty in identifying and assigning the critical input parameters that are required when dealing with
heterogeneous anisotropic media, the rock mass.
Numerical models can be used successfully for comparative and parametric studies provided the
modelling technique employed can consistently assess various geometries. Errors in the computed stresses can
be accounted for in the design process, provided the errors are consistent. There is little point, however, in
accurately determining induced pillar stresses with expensive and time consuming modelling techniques when
there is no accurate method of determining the absolute pillar stress and strength.
42
F
FF
FF F
FF F
PP F
F F
F F
F
F P
PP F
0
FF F
PF FF
F PP
F F
F
‘F’ denotes modelled failure.

FF FF
FFFF FFF
FFFFF FFFF
FFFFF FFFFF
FFFFFF FFFFFF
FFFFFF FFFFFF
FFFFFFP FPFFFFF
FFFFPFF FFFFFFF
FFFFFFFF FFFFFFF
FFFFFFFF FFFFFF
FFFFFFFF FFFPFFF
FFFFFFF FFFFFFF
FFFFFFF FFFFFF
FFPFFFF FFFFFF
FFFFFF FFFFFF
FFPFFF :FFFFFF
FFFFFF :FFFFFF
FPFFFF FFFFFF
FFFFFF FFFFFP
FFFFFF FFFFFF
FFFFFF FFFFFF
FFFFFC FFFFFF
F F F F F F
FFFF
FFFF FFFFFF
FFF
‘F’ denotes modelled failure.
FFFFF
PP FF
Figure 22: Modelled pillar failure as a result of pillar reduction (after Brady, 1977).
BRITTLENESS PEAK
MODULUS (MPa) STRENGTH (MPa)
a EXPOSED CORNER 12.5 72
b EXPOSED SIDE 8.3 90
o RE-ENTRANT CORNER 7.0 126

d ONE BEHIND FREE SIDE 6.3 156
I bi dv’
MINED IaibIbIbIcV/EI.ASTIC
AREA IbIdIdid/
& bididid
lalbi bib
I bi dV,’
C
U 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 CONVERGENCE(m)
Figure 23: The peak strength, deformation characteristics, and effect of location used for investigating a
pillar case history with a displacement discontinuity program (after Maconochie et al., 1981).
43
ELASTIC
BRITrLE RANGE
29
FAILED
31
0
0
32
I
33
34
35
36
Figure 24: The normal stress and the failed regions estimated with the displacement discontinuity program,
NFOLD, for a sill pillar case history (after Maconochie et al., 1981).
15/I. 15/I-
1GB 1GB
17 D 17 D
17/I. 17/L
02550 100 02550 100
18 B 1GB
METRES METRES
190 19C
31
38
NORMAL .70 MN/rn

2 50 - 59 2
MN/rn
STRESS
60 - 69 MN/rn
2 40. 49 MN/rn
2
Figure 25: The distribution of normal stress in a mining block was estimated for two different mining
sequences to determine the best extraction sequence using displacement discontinuity methods
(after Bywater Ct al., 1983).
44
2.4 PILLAR STRENGTH ESTIMATION AT WESTMIN RESOURCES LTD. ‘S H-W MINE
The approaches to pillar design presented in this chapter may be valid in the environment in which
they were derived, however, they do not present a pillar design method that can be used for all pillar situations,
particularly underground hard rock mines. In order to make an assessment of pillar strength at Westmin
Resources Ltd.’s H-W Mine, the following approach was taken:
1. Determine the material properties of the rock mass at Westmin Resources Ltd. ‘s H-W Mine such
as intact rock strength, rock mass characteristics, and structural features.
2. Perform in-situ stress measurements in the vicinity of the H-W Mine as a primary input parameter
for three-dimensional boundary element modelling.
3. Classify all pillars in the study domain according to their observed stability condition.
4. Perform numerical modelling simulating mining and pillar extraction sequencing in an attempt to
determine pillar stresses and pillar stress history. Calibrate the numerical model with observation
of pillar failures.
5. Analyze and correlate the pillars classified with regard to the geometric properties of the pillar,
the stress conditions from modelling, the structural and rock mass conditions in the pillar vicinity,
and visual assessment of pillar stability.
6. Augment the Westmin pillar database with available published hard rock pillar data and develop a
comprehensive pillar strength relationship.
2.5 CHAPTER SUMMARY

This chapter has reviewed the state-of-the-art regarding pillar stress and strength determination and
has presented the methodology for pillar strength estimation at Westmin Resources Ltd.’s H-W Mine.
Empirical strength formulae that relate pillar strength to pillar width I height ratios have been successfully used
in the literature for pillar strength estimation. Theoretical methods have been developed by various researchers
but these techniques have not been widely used in practice. The majority of pillar strength analysis has been
conducted for coal pillars in horizontally bedded deposits and this work must be augmented by hard rock pillar
data in order to advance the state-of-the-art in pillar design for hard rock mining operations.
45
3. PILLAR FAILURE MECHANISM
The mechanism of pillar failure must be understood in order to adequately assess the strength of mine
pillars. Two basic forms of pillar instability are possible:
• a progressive or controlled failure mode

• a bursting or unstable failure mode
Progressive failure occurs over an extended period of time and is the result of the gradual release of
energy by a pillar. Progressive pillar failure is characterized by the increase in the number and size of fractures
along with blocks falling out of the pillar and the gradual hour-glassing of pillar walls.
Bursting pillar failure is characterized by a rapid release of energy and pillar mass. Severe damage to
nearby infrastructure and life can result due to flying rock from a burst type failure. The degree to which a rock
mass system is susceptible to bursting failures is described by Budavari (1983) as follows: In a system where
the host rock mass is less stiff than the pillar rock mass, the host rock mass can store up loaded energy similar
to a spring. When the host rock mass (the spring) releases the stored energy, the resulting failure results in a
violent release of energy as the “stiff’ pillar fails rapidly.
Much of the research into pillar failure and pillar strength has been undertaken on coal pillars. The
width / height ratios of these coal pillars is generally higher than the width / height ratios of hard rock pillars.
Numerical modelling shows that when a pillar has a width / height ratio greater than one, the effect of the
minor principal stress on pillar strength is significant (this is discussed in Section 5.2.3.2). This has a dramatic
impact on the type of failure that one would observe.
Figure 26 (a-e) are representations of various progressive pillar failure modes that are possible and are
described as follows:
• Figure 26 (a) illustrates spalling of pillar walls into the mine opening, this type of failure is of a
progressive nature.
• Figure 26 (b) illustrates failure along a discrete failure plane that develops within the core of the
pillar.
• Figure 26 (c) illustrates internal splitting as the result of pillar movement along soft partings
(clay) at the top and bottom of the pillar.
• In a rock mass that has a pronounced structural presence, failure can occur as illustrated Figure 26
(d, e). Where structure is oriented along the vertical axis of the pillar, failure can assume a
buckling mode. In pillars that are transected by inclined structures, the failure is similar to that of
a sliding deck of cards.
46
(a) (b)
original pillar surface (C)
— soft partings
(d) (e) internal splitting
Figure 26: Principal modes of deformation behaviour of mine pillars (after Brady & Brown, 1985).
3.1 PILL4R STABILITYASSESSMENT

Krauland & Soder (1987) presented a method for characterizing the progressive failure of mine pillars
at Boliden Minerals Black Angel Mine, Greenland. They extended the small scale work of Hallbauer et al.
(1973) and John (1971) which showed that zones of extensive fracturing, on a microscopic scale within a
sample specimen, occurred at load levels in excess of 95% of the maximum stress as shown in Figure 27.
Using this general methodology, Krauland & Soder (1987) developed the six stage pillar failure classification
method presented in Table 6. Using this method, relative pillar stability can be classified and the available
pillar load bearing capacity estimated.
3.2 FACTORS RELATED TO PILLAR STABILITY

One must investigate the factors that contribute to pillar stability and ultimately pillar strength when
discussing pillar failure mechanism. The major variables are discussed in the following section. This does not
preclude that in some cases there may be additional variables that have an effect on the stability of mine pillars.
47
C
°doI
0.6 am. 095 am. 0.98 o1nc. arn t am.

Region III 4 Region I Region V
Figure 27: Fracturing of rock specimens at various stages of loading (after Krauland & Soder, 1987).
Table 6: Pillar failure classification method (after Krauland & Soder, 1987).
Pillar Stability Pillar Conditions

Classification
0 No fractures
1 Slight spalling of pillar corners and pillar walls, with short fracture
lengths_in relation to pillar height,_sub parallel_to_pillar walls.
2 One or a few fractures near surface, distinct spalling.
3 Fractures also appear in central parts of the pillar.
4 One or few fractures occur through central parts of the pillar.
Fracture may be parallel to pillar walls or diagonal, indicating
emergence of an hour-glass-shaped pillar.
5 Disintegration of pillar. Major blocks fall out and / or the pillar is
cut off by well defined fractures. Alternatively, a well developed
hour-glass shape may emerge, with central parts completely
crushed.
48
3.2.1 Intact Rock Strength
One of the governing factors on the strength of mine pillars is the unconfined compressive strength of
the intact pillar material. This value can be obtained through the testing of small scale laboratory samples, the
point load index or the hammer test. The drawback of using a laboratory strength for pillar strength estimation
is that the effects of structural defects and variability of strength associated within the rock mass are ignored. It
must be noted that in many mining situations, the unconfined compressive strength is the only value
representative of rock mass strength available to mine engineers. The unconfined strength does not however
represent the true unconfined compressive strength of the rock mass. “Size Effect” formulae or strength
correction factors are used to attempt to relate laboratory values of intact rock strength to in-situ rock mass
strength estimates.
3.2.2 Pillar Stress

Pillar failure occurs when pillar stresses exceed the pillar strength. This is visually observed by
fracturing and spalling of pillar material. In order to make an assessment of pillar strength, it is necessary to
have an estimate of pillar stress to compare with the calculated pillar strength. Therefore, pillar stress is a
critical component in the assessment of pillai strength.
3.2.3 Pillar Shape

Pillar shape plays an important role in pillar strength estimation as illustrated by the researchers
whose work was presented in Chapter 2. It is acknowledged that the more slender a pillar, the lower the pillar
strength. Figure 28 is a plot of curves that Hock & Brown (1980) presented which illustrate the effect of pillar
shape on pillar strength based upon the work of various researchers. It can be seen that as pillar width / height
ratio increases, the pillar strength increases at a decreasing rate, for all methods presented.
2.0
1.8
1.6 vd
K Salaien and Munro
14
for V 5000 ft
3
1 2 Greenwald et al
‘Average, c 0.6, d — -0.1
a
Holland and Gaddy
o.8
C
Bieniawski
0.6
0.4
0.2
0 1 2 3 4 5
Pillar width/height ratio — Wp/h
Figure 28: Relationship between pillar shape and pillar strength for constants suggested by various authors
(after Hock & Brown, 1980).
49
.6
14
— (Wp/h)C vd
... 1.2
for W/h — 1
n 1.0
0.8
C
.3
0.6
and Munro
0.4
.3.
0.2
0
0.1 10 100 1000 10000 100000
Pillar volume V - 3
ft
Figure 29: Relationship between pillar volume and pillar strength for constants suggested by various authors
(after Hoek & Brown, 1980).
3.2.4 Pillar Volume

A pillar with a larger volume will contain more structural defects and consequently have a lower
strength for a given width / height ratio. It has been shown, however, that there is an upper boundary to this
relationship. Figure 29 illustrates the effect of volume on pillar strength as determined by various researchers.
Figure 30 presents a curve relating sample strength to sample size for specimens of various sizes. The curves
show that as sample size reaches a critical limit, the loss of strength becomes negligible with an increase in
sample volume. This is observed to occur when the sample diameter is greater than 1.0 to 1.5 metres. Figure
31 is a figure presented by Kostak (1971) that shows the effect of sample size on the strength testing of small
scale intact samples.
3.2.5 Pillar Modulus

The elastic modulus of a mine pillar is a combination of the intact elastic modulus of the pillar rock
and the degree of fracturing that is present in the pillar. Work by Wagner (1974), Hallbauer et al. (1973), and
John (1971) suggests that the elastic modulus of a pillar or laboratory specimen does not begin to decrease until
approximately 90-95% of the ultimate load of a sample is reached. Kostak & Bielenstein (1971) present a
relationship between pillar modulus and pillar size in Figure 32.
3.2.6 Constitutive Relationship

The constitutive relationship of a mine pillar dictates how it will perform when subjected to loading.
Figure 33 shows the results of large scale loading performed on a coal pillar by Wagner (1974). Results of this
test showed that a pillar develops higher stresses in the core and lower stresses at the perimeter. At pillar
50
failure, the centre of the pillar is still subjected to stress, however the entire pillar can be considered to be in a
state of failure. Figure 34 shows a graph which represent the constitutive relationship of a pillar under varying
degrees of confinement presented by Starfield & Fairhurst (1968). This relationship shows that as pillar
confinement increases, the pillar strength also increases.
3.2.7 Pillar Confinement

Pillar confinement plays a role in defining strength and predicting failure type. Pillars that are
exposed on four sides (square pillars) may be weaker than pillars that are longer in one dimension (rib pillars)
because of a lower average confinement within the square pillar. Researchers have proposed (Section 2.2.1.3) a
means to compensate for this variation in geometry and have verified it with laboratory sized samples.
Empirical strength formulae routinely use pillar width I height ratio as an input variable, however this is only
an indirect measure of pillar confinement. A confinement factor is introduced in Chapter 5 that may
compensate for the effects of different shapes of pillars.
Symbol Rook Tested by

o Marble Mogi
1.3 a Limestone Koifman
Granite Burchartz et al
C Basalt Koifman
S
C Basalt-andesite lava Melekidze
U Gabbro llnickaya
C
• Marble llnickaya
1.2
• Monte Bieniawski
C Granite Hoskins & Horino
4; V Quartz dionite Pratt et al
C
Ca
U
V
Ce
C UN
4-
00
.0.0
0,
(
c
m /°C5Q) 8
’
0
(50/d)
CC
54;
I.
SC
>> 0
54;
0.
am
mm
CC
0.
50 100 250
Specimen diameter d - m
Figure 30: Influence of specimen size upon the strength of intact rock (after Hoek & Brown, 1980).
51
.5 .5 .5 ,
— 05 .,
.0
4 1.
•R .
b 0
— F
•_ 4000C
-
— — — —
4, —
0.
—
-0
3000C__ — —
;—_—.
b2000C — — —
4,
(I
mw
I I0 700 7000 70000 70000 100000
Sptcim.n Volume cu in
Figure 31: Effect of specimen size on compressive strength (after Kostak, 1971)
4,
0.
Li
0
4-
0
E
0
0
4
•0
0
Volume Ioq
V.
10 3
in
Figure 32: Size effect in modulus of deformation, E (after Kostak & Bielenstein, 1970)
3.2.8 Structural Features

Denkhaus (1962) and Bieniawski (1968) postulate that rock mass strength is dependent on the amount
of stnictural defects and that there must be a certain dimension that above which, the effect of sample size is no
longer significant. This approach suggests that the intact pillar strength should be determined on a large
enough sample size so that it will be representative of mine size pillars. Based upon in-situ tests, Bieniawski
(1968), suggests that the representative sample size for coal is a cube with a side length of 1.5 metres.
52
2
PIar compression (m)
Figure 33: Stress distribution in a coal pillar at various stages of loading (after Wagner, 1974).
Figure 34: Stress strain curves for laboratory specimens loaded under increasing confining stresses show an
-
increase in peak load and an increase in the post-peak load bearing capacity (after Starfield &
Fairhurst, 1968).
3.3 PILLAR STABILITY CLASSIFICATION METHOD AT WESTMIN RESOURCES LTD. H-W MINE
A pillar stability classification method has been developed for use at Westmin Resources Ltd.’s H-W
Mine. The pillar stability classification is an integral part of the pillar strength relationship that is developed in
Chapter 4. Pillar stability classification is a tool that can be used to assess a pillars’ current stability condition
and is related to results from numerical modelling and pillar geometry to derive a pillar strength relationship.
53
Table 7 is the pillar stability classification method that was developed for use at the H-W Mine. This
method was based upon the methodology presented by Krauland & Soder (1987) and upon the observation of
pillar conditions by the author within the H-W Mine. Figure 35 schematically illustrates each of the pillar
classes as presented in Table 7.
3.4 CHAPTER SUMMARY

This chapter reviewed pillar failure mechanisms with particular reference to progressive pillar failure.
The significant variables related to pillar strength have been identified and summarized. The pillar stability
classification method used at Westmin Resources Ltd.’s H-W Mine has been presented.
Opening Opening Opening

j
Class 1 Class 2 Class 3
,\i/ Opening Opening

)J\
Class 4 Class 5
Figure 35: Schematic illustration of Westmin Resources Ltd.’s pillar stability classification method Class
-
“5”.
—
Table 7: Westmin Resources Ltd.’s pillar stability classification method.
Pillar Stability Observed Pillar Conditions

Classification
1 No Sign of Stress Induced Fracturing
2 Corner Breaking Up Only
3 Fracturing in Pillar Walls
Fractures < ½ Pillar Height in Length
Fracture Aperture <5 mm
4 Fractures> ½ Pillar Height in Length
Fracture Aperture> 5_mm, <_10 mm
5 Disintegration of Pillar
Blocks Falling Out
Fracture aperture> 10 mm
Fractures Through Pillar Core
54
4. PILLAR STRENGTH ESTIMATION AT WESTMIN RESOURCES LTD. ‘S.
H-W MINE, A CASE STUDY. -
An objective of the Westmin CANMET project, and consequently this thesis, was to develop a
-
method for determining the strength of massive sulphide pillars at Westmin Resources Ltd. ‘s, H-W Mine. This
was accomplished through the analysis of collected geological data, pillar stability classification, and numerical
modelling results. This data was analyzed in conjunction with the known mining history, resulting in the
development of a strength relationship for use at Westmin Resources Ltd.’s H-W Mine.
Westmin Resources Ltd. operates a base metal mine at the south end of Buttle Lake on Vancouver
Island, approximately 90 km. west of Campbell River, B.C. Figure 36 is a location plan of Westmin Resources
Ltd.’s Myra Falls Operations. Mining has been ongoing at the Myra Falls property since 1967 when Western
Mines Ltd. started the Lynx open pit mine. In 1979 the H-W orebody was discovered and, through the period
1981-1985, underground development was carried out and the construction of a 2700 mtpd mill was completed.
The current rated mill production at the Myra Falls Operations is 3650 mtpd with the bulk of the production
tonnage being supplied by the H-W Mine.
4.1 GEOLOGY OF THE H-W MINE

5
The ore deposits of Westmin Resources Ltd.’s Myra Falls Operations occur as individual orebodies
grouped into several major zones. This case study is based on the Main Zone of the H-W orebody. The Myra
Falls ore deposits are polymetallic massive sulphide deposits associated with felsic volcanic rocks. The ore
formed as sedimentary lenses on the sea floor, precipitated from metal bearing hot springs contemporaneous
with felsic volcanic rocks. Hot spring activity produced widespread hydrothermal alteration of walirocks,
particularly below the ore lenses. Hydrothermal alteration is represented by sericitization, silicification, and
pryritization. A generalized cross-section of the H-W Mine with the larger ore lenses is shown in Figure 37.
The ore minerals are: pyrite, sphalerite, chalcopyrite, galena and barite, all of which vary widely in
their proportions. Occurrences of rhyolite, sulphides and altered rocks are distributed vertically and laterally
within a stratigraphic zone approximately 400 to 500 metres thick. The mine sequence lies within the Myra
formation of the Palaeozoic Sicker Group. The mine sequence is comprised of massive volcanic and coarse to
fine volcaniclastic rocks, which include basalt, andesite, dacite and rhyolite, as well as subordinate sedimentary
rocks which include chert, carbonaceous argillite, suiphides and barite. The mine sequence is internally bedded
and is predominantly mafic and volcaniclastic. Lithologic units are laterally discontinuous with a distinct
northwest trend which parallel the trend of the individual orezones.
The geological description presented in this section is reproduced predominantly from Walker, 1983.
55
Figure 36: Location plan of Westmin Resources Ltd.’s Myra Falls operations.
The H-W orebody and associated lenses occur at the base of, and within, the H-W rhyolite unit which
lies at the bottom of the mine sequence. The mine sequence has been folded and metamorphosed in the lower
greenschist facies. Deformational fabrics are variably developed with widespread occurrence of schistose and
lineated rocks. Schistosity is most intense in sericitic rhyolites and altered rocks. Schistosity strikes northwest
and dips steeply northeast. Lineations, as well as fold hinges, trend northwest with flat to very shallow plunge.
Post metamorphic faults offset the ore zones and zones of broken ground are common along major faults and
ore contacts. Most notable is the east-west striking flat fault against which the Main Zone of the H-W orebody
terminates to the north. A series of east-west trending faults are present in the southern portion of the orebody.
56
The H-W orebody has a thickness of 60 metres at the core and tapers at the margins. The majority of
the orebody is between 10 metres and 40 metres thick. The orebody exhibits strong lateral zoning ranging from
a very massive, pyrite core with high copper-zinc ratios, to zinc and barite rich margins with low copper-zinc
ratios.
HW Mine
Heodframe North
Price
Portal
13 Level
(3289.4)
18 Level
20 Level
(2962.8)
21 Level
(2918.0)
23 Level
(2826.3)
24 Leve.l
(27793)
North Lens
25 Level
(2719.6) Ore Bin 100 metres
0
26 Level
(2683.3)
27 Level
(2652.1) 0 400 feet
-
Figure 37: A simplified cross-section of the H-W Mine showing the location of the shaft, lateral development
and the major orebodies.
57
4.2 MINING PRACTICE AT THE 11W MINE
Variations of several different mining methods have been used at the H-W Mine. Listed below are the
methods that have accounted for the bulk of the production from the H-W Mine:
• blasthole open stoping

• cut-and-fill post-pillar
• cut-and-fill longitudinal
• room-and-pillar
The more steeply dipping, southern flank of the Main Zone has been primarily mined with
longitudinal cut-and-fill stopes, augmented by longitudinal blasthole stoping. The core of the orebody has been
mined primarily with cut-and-fill post pillar stopes and the north flank has been mined using transverse
blasthole open stopes. The smaller, gently dipping tabular lenses to the north of the Main Zone have been
mined using room-and-pillar methods. Figure 38 is a simplified cross-section through the orebody looking
Figure 38: Schematic of mining method and the respective location within the orebody used in the H-W
Mine.
58
west showing the location within the orebody of each mining method used. Hydraulically placed cemented
backfill is used in all stopes. Figure 39, Figure 40, and Figure 41 schematically illustrate open stoping and
room-and-pillar mining methods.
In 1989, the mining practices at the H-W Mine were abruptly changed from 80% cut-and-fill post-
pillar and 20% blasthole methods to 90% blasthole and 10% cut-and-fill post-pillar methods. This resulted in
lower mining costs through the reduction of manpower and equipment requirements. Blasthole stopes are
drilled off using either 57 mm or 89 mm blastholes up to 20 metres in length. Stoping blocks are variable in
size and shape, with the largest blasthole stope created to-date being 25,600 m
. Smaller blocks of
3
approximately 7,500 m
3 are more frequently mined. The mining methods employed have necessitated the
development of a number of barrier pillars in the orebody. These barrier pillars contain numerous openings
which include: drifts, drawpoints, ore passes and raises.
Figure 39: Schematic layout for sublevel open stoping with ring-drilled blast holes (after Hamrin, 1982).
59
Figure 40: Schematic layout for room-and-pillar mining (after Hamrin, 1982).
Figure 41: Elements of a supported method of mining (after Hamrin, 1982).
60
4.3 WESTMIN IN-siTu DATABASE
A data collection program was undertaken in order to determine the distribution of the in-situ rock
mass properties at Westmin Resources Ltd.’s H-W Mine. This section presents the results of the data collection
program.
4.3.1 Intact Strength Analysis

In order to assess the strength of a rock mass, knowledge of the intact rock strength is required.
Samples were collected from five locations throughout the H-W Mine, representing massive suiphide ore,
hangingwall volcanics, footwall volcanics, altered footwall volcanics, and felsic dyke in order to assess the
intact strength properties. Samples were obtained at depths between 4.40 metres and 540 metres below surface.
Testing was carried out to ISRM standards at the Mining Research Laboratories (Gorski & Conlon, MRL
Report 92-027(Int.)), Ottawa to determine the following intact rock properties:
• unconfmed compressive strength

• tensile strength
• elastic modulus
• poisson’s ratio
The results of this testing program are presented in Table 8.
4.3.2 Fabric Analysis

Geotechnical mapping was undertaken at all accessible locations within the barrier pillars throughout
the H-W Mine Main Zone and limited mapping was undertaken in the footwall volcanics. The geotechnical
-
data collected included structural features and rock mass classification. The parameters collected for each
structure mapped were:
• orientation
• infilling
• roughness
• length
• continuity
• openness
• hardness
• water conditions
• planarity
61
Table 8: Westmin intact rock properties for the H-W Main Zone.
Unconfined Average Standard Count

Compressive Deviation
Strength (MPa) (MPa)
Massive Suiphide Ore 172 4 3
Footwall Rhyolite 70 17 4
Hangingwall Rhyolite 91 31 4
Feldspar Porphyry Dyke 147 12 3
Altered Footwall Andesite 29 13 6
Tensile Average Standard Count

Strength Deviation
(MPa) MPa)
Footwall Rhvolite 4 n/a 2
Hangingwall Rhyolite 13 13 8
Feldspar Porphyry Dyke 16 16 13
Elastic Average Standard Count

Modulus Deviation
(GPa) (GPa)
Footwall Rhyolite 63 3 4
Haningwall Rhyolite 45 10 5
Feldspar ‘orphyry Dyke 71 5 3
Poisson’s Average Standard Count

Ratio Deviation
Massive Sulphide Ore 0.15 0.06 3
Footwall Rhyolite 0.12 n/a
Hangingwall Rhyolite 0.26 n/a 2
Feldspar Porphyry Dyke 0.25 0.04 3
Altered Footwall Andesite 0.32 0.3 3
Three joint sets were identified, one major, one intermediate, and one minor. The major joint set
corresponds to the orientation of the foliation of the volcanics and the major faults in the mine area. The
orientations of the joints sets are presented graphically on Figure 42 and are tabulated Table 9.
62
Joint Set B
159/75 W
Joint Set A
251/57 N
Joint Set
058/68
EIev.
North
East
Figure 42: Isometric view showing the major joint sets identified within the H-W Main Zone.
4.3.3 Rock Mass ClassWcation

Rock mass classification according to the CSIR-RMR method, (Bieniawski, 1973), was performed
throughout the barrier study area at approximately ten metre intervals along drifts within the barrier pillars.
Rock mass quality within the barrier pillars varied from a fair-good (R14R 60%) to good-very good quality rock
mass (RMR 80%). It must be noted that, due to the extent of mining, the RMR values recorded represent
induced rock mass ratings within the pillars and not the pre-mining rock mass quality. Areas of the mine
subject to lower stress conditions, as determined by modelling, were observed to have higher rock mass
classification ratings.
4.3.4 Geometry
The H-W Mine orebodies consist of the Main Zone, the North Zone and a number of smaller zones.
The case study domain was confined to the Main Zone orebody, which has approximate dimensions of 850
metres in strike length and 220 metres in width. The Main Zone orebody varies in dip from 20° to 50° to the
north and plunges at approximately 10° to the west. Mineable thickness varies from approximately 10 metres
in the south to 40 metres in the north-west.
The study required a detailed understanding of the mine geometry in three dimensions. This was
accomplished by transforming two-dimensional mine sections and plans into a three-dimensional model within
AutoCAD. This three-dimensional computer model formed the framework for the numerical modelling phase
of the project. Figure 43 and Figure 44 are isometric views of the three-dimensional geometric model showing
stoping blocks and barrier pillars respectively.
63
Table 9: Summary of joint features or the Westmin H-W Main Zone.
Set A 172 obs.

- Average Std. Dev.
Strike (deg.) 251 18
Dip (deg.) 57 N 17
Length (m) 7.1 3.3
End Visible 0
Planarity Planar -
Wavy
Roughness 9
Openness tight I
Set B 172 obs.

- Average Std. Dev.
Dip (deg.) 75 W 16
L.ength (m) 3.3 2.1
End Visible 1
Planarity Planar
Roughness 12
Openness tight
Set C 39 obs.
- Average Std. Dev.
Dip (deg.) 68 S 17
Length (m) 4.7 3.0
End Visible
Planarity Planar
Roughness 7
Openness tight
4.3.5 In-Situ Stress Determination

Triaxial overcoring stress measurements to determine in-situ stress conditions were performed at two
locations in the H-W Mine by the Mining Research Laboratories, Elliot Lake Ont. (Arjang & Stevens, MRL
Report 91- 1 44(TR)). The in-situ test was performed at the shaft station on 23 Level, at a depth of 600 metres,
to determine the current state of in-situ stress in the vicinity of the H-W Mine. The results of the in-situ triaxial
test are presented in Table 10. The results of the biaxial in-situ stress measurement program, which was
performed previously at the H-W Mine, are presented in Table 11.
64
S388
S368
S356
Figure 43: Isometric view showing the location of stopes with the H-W Main Zone.
Figure 44: Isometric view showing the location of the barrier pillars within the H-W Main Zone.
65
Table 10: In-situ triaxial stress measurement results at the H-W Mine.
Principal Multiplier Magnitude Orientation

Stress (MPa) Direction / Plunge
a 1.902 36 N1l4°E/04°
(‘2 1.lGv 20 N025°E/ 18°
03 (‘V 19 Vertical
Table 11: In-situ biaxial stress measurement results at the H-W Mine.
Principal Multiplier Magnitude Orientation

Stress (MPa) Direction I Plunge
Ci 2.25a,, 34.2 N021°E/27°
02 1.8102 27.5 N290°E/01°
03 j 02 15.2 N108°E/63°
Figure 45 (a) is a stereonet plot of the triaxial in-situ stress measurements and Figure 45 (b) is a plot of
the historical measurements (biaxial doorstopper). Figure 45 shows that the orientations of the principal
stresses determined from the two programs compare favorably. The major difference between these two
programs is the magnitude of the horizontal components of the in-situ stress. The ratio of horizontal to vertical
stress for the triaxial program were lower than those of the biaxial program. This was most pronounced for
(‘N-S , which was 2.25 o for the biaxial program and 1.1 o for the triaxial program. The results of the triaxial
program were used for numerical modelling purposes, however, the impact of the potentially higher stresses as
predicted by the biaxial program was investigated with a parametric modelling session and is discussed in
Section 4.4.1.2.1.
4.4 PILLAR STRENGTH ESTIMATION AT WESTMIN RESOURCE LTD. ‘S H-W MINE

The H-W Mine, Main Zone includes ten barrier pillars, which vary in width between 15 and 25
metres. These barrier pillars have numerous secondary openings within them which have resulted in the
development of many “small” pillars (drawpoints & ribs). A typical simplified cut-away barrier pillar
schematic with development openings and “small” pillars is shown in Figure 46. It is the “small” pillars
which have been used to develop the Westmin pillar strength relationship.
4.4.1 Numerical Modelling

Numerical modelling for the prediction of mining induced stresses in the barrier pillars was an
integral part of this thesis. Numerical modelling of the H-W Mine was performed using Map3D, a three
dimensional, fictitious force boundary element program, that models elastic stress conditions. Excavations are
defined as a series of boundary elements and stresses are calculated away from the excavations on user defined
stress grids.
66
S
In—Situ Stress Plot — Triaxial Overcore 23 Level Station In—Situ Stress — Biaxial Measurements
Figure 45: Polar stereonet plots of the results of the triaxial and the biaxial in-situ stress measurement
programs within the H-W Main Zone.
4.4.1.1 Map3D Numerical Modelling Program

Map3D is a commercially available three-dimensional boundary element modelling program
developed by Terry Wiles of Mine Modelling Ltd., Copper Cliff, Ont. This program was chosen over other
numerical modelling programs because of its ease of use and IBM PC compatibility. Building a model in
Map3D involves defining a series of blocks to be excavated (stopes or portions of stopes) using conventional
numerical modelling techniques. Element discretization takes place within the model based upon a number of
discretization parameters supplied by the user to the program. Figure 47 shows a portion of the Westmin
Map3D model with a vertical stress grid running through the centre of the 366 south barrier pillar. Figure 47
also shows the results for the induced on the stress grid and the location at which the core pillar stresses are
measured.
Using Map3D, stresses are calculated only on grids of field points as specified by the user. This
approach to three-dimensional modelling results in reduced computation times over other modelling programs.
A typical model of the Westmin orebody with a single grid of field points requires two to four hours of
computational time on an IBM Intel 8046 computer with four megabytes of random access memory and a 650
megabyte hard disk. The model construction was accomplished by exporting information from AutoCAD
directly to a Map3D input data file. The geometric input required for the model was extracted from the three-
dimensional AutoCAD model as shown in Figure 43 and Figure 44.
67
HANGING WALL
EXTRACTIC - -
LEVEL
“SMALL” PILLAR
Figure 46: Simplified barrier pillar schematic showing the development of the “small” pillars.
4.4.1.2 Westmin Map3D Modelling Sessions

Numerical modelling of the H-W Mine using Map3D was completed as follows:
modelling of the mining sequence of the H-W Mine Main Zone from the beginning of mining to
-
the present time, utilizing the in-situ stress conditions determined from the in-situ stress
measurement program as discussed in Section 4.3.5
• modelling of the planned barrier pillar extraction sequence
• sensitivity analyses based upon modelling input parameters
The input parameters that were investigated in the sensitivity analyses are:
• the in-situ stress parameters

• the effects of modelling the orebody as a stiff inclusion within a soft host
The goals of the numerical modelling sessions for the Westmin-CANMET report were different than
those of this thesis. For the purpose of this thesis, it was only required that an assessment of the stresses on the
classified pillars at the time of pillar stability classification be made.
It was not feasible to model every opening in the H-W Mine for the purpose of stress determination
and all of the modelling sessions have considered the barrier pillars intact. However, these pillars have
development openings within them in the form of drifts, drawpoints, and raises. The pillars that have been
classified for use in pillar strength determination are “small” pillars developed within these barrier pillars. In
order to assess the stresses on these “small” pillars, the average core stress (a
) of the barrier pillar in which
1
the “small” pillar lies has been used and then scaled to determine the stress on the “small” pillar. The location
68
Figure 47: Typical Map3D stress modelling output showing the location at which the core stress was
determined.
at which the core stress (Of) is measured and the method used to determine the “small” pillar stresses is
discussed further in Section 4.4.1.4.
4.4.1.2.1 Sensitivity Analysis

The results of the modelling sessions that investigated the model sensitivity to the two in-situ stress
regimes and the differing rock mass stiffness’ are presented below.
4.4.1.2.1.1 In-Situ Sfress Variation

Two in-situ stress measurement programs have been perfonned at the H-W Mine. A triaxial CSIR
program was performed as part of this project and a biaxial program had been performed earlier as discussed in
Section 4.3.5. While the stress orientations, as illustrated in Figure 45, determined in these two programs
provided similar results, the magnitude of the horizontal principal stresses in the north-south direction varied
by approximately a factor of two. Modelling was performed using both of these two in-situ stress conditions as
model input parameters to ascertain what the impact of the two different in-situ stress regimes would be on the
predicted barrier pillar stresses. Results showed a 10 20% increase in induced stresses in the barrier pillars as
-
a result of increasing the aNS component of in-situ stress from 1.1 ato 2.25 0. It was observed from
69
modelling that pillars oriented in the north-south direction experienced a greater percentage stress increase
than pillars oriented in the east-west direction.
4.4.1.2.1 .2 Stiff Orebody

The H-W orebody was modelled as a stiff body surrounded by a soft host. This modelling was
performed because the massive sulphide ore is significantly stiffer than the surrounding volcanic host rock as
reported in Section 4.3.1. Modelling results showed that the predicted core stresses (a
) in the barrier pillars
1
were 10-30% higher for a two material model than for a single material model. The stress increases were most
pronounced in the barrier pillars that had a high percentage of mining extraction within their vicinity.
4.4.1.3 Map3D Core Barrier Pillar Stress vs. Average Barrier Pillar Stress
-
The average pillar stress (ar) of the barrier pillar (as opposed to the core pillar stress) is the main
stress input parameter used to make an assessment of the stress on the “small” pillars developed within the
barrier pillars. The core stress value is obtained from the modelling results at the location within the model as
shown in Figure 47 and modified according to the extraction ratio in the vicinity of the “small” pillar. This
core stress is used because it is difficult to obtain the three-dimensional average stress in the barrier pillars. It
would be necessary to take a three-dimensional stress average, which could only be obtained with extensive
modelling sessions utilizing stress grids of many different orientations.
In order to utilize the core stress in comparison with other data which uses average pillar stress, it was
necessary to develop a relationship between “core” barrier pillar stress and “average” barrier pillar stress.
Average barrier pillar stresses (a
) parallel to the direction of loading were detennined at a number of locations
1
within the model and compared to the “core” stresses (as) at the same location. These results are presented in
Figure 48. Although there is significant scatter in the results, the average barrier pillar stress (a
) can be
1
approximated by 85% of the core stress (a
) at the same location. This average stress value of 85% of the core
1
) is used for the construction of the pillar stability plots in order to be consistent with the method of
stress (a
1
representing pillar stresses as averages, as used by the author’s whose databases will be presented in Chapter 5.
4.4.1.4 Determination OfAverage “Small” Pillar Stresses at Westmin Resources

The method used to calculate the average “small” pillar stresses for use with the pillar strength
determination methods, presented in Chapter 5, is as follows:
• determine the core barrier pillar stress 1

(a
) , calculated using Map3D, at the location of the
“small” pillar within the barrier pillar.
• modify this value according to the previous section, whereby the average barrier stress equals 85%
of the core barrier stress, to determine the average barrier pillar stress at that location.
70
• finally, scale the average barrier pillar stress based upon the extraction ratio within the barrier
pillar at the “small” pillars’ location within the barrier pillar, resulting in the average “small”
pillar stress.
Estimating the overall barrier pillar stress based upon Map3l) modelling realistically represents the
mine geometry, ignoring “secondary” development. Using the extraction ratio to determine the local “small”
pillar stresses provides an effective means of determining the average “small” pillar stresses. This method of
estimating the “small” pillar stress was verified utilizing a parametric numerical modelling study of a
simplified barrier pillar geometry as illustrated in Figure 49.
The following parametric modelling sessions were performed:
A. a simplified barrier pillar separating two stopes without development

B. a single drift being placed at the centre of the simplified barrier pillar
C. a single drift and drawpoints on one side of the simplified barrier pillar
80
70
60
4:
---
20
Average Barrier Pillar Stress —0.85 * Core Barrier Pillar Stress
10
65 Observations
0
10 20 30 40 50 60 70
0
Average Map3D Barrier Stress (MPa)
Observed vaiJ
Figure 48: Barrier pillar stress comparison, average Map3D barrier pillar stresses vs. core Map3D barrier
pillar stresses.
71
The results obtained from the simplified barrier pillar with development, cases B & C, and the intact
barrier pillar, case A with tributary area approach applied, agreed to within 10%. It is the author’s opinion that
this amount of error is acceptable, making this approach valid for the detennination of the average “small”
pillar stresses. An example calculation of this method of determining average “small” pillar stress from the
“core” barrier pillar stress is given as follows:
O bamer core 3OMPa

01 banier average — 0.85.a barrier core 25.5 MPa
Extraction Ratio — 0.40
01 small average l barrier average(I/(l_EXlracttOn Ratio))
01 small average 42.5 MPa
(a) (b)
Barer PUI Drift
(c)
‘-cQzcQQQcQwQj
F;fl
Drift & Drawpoints Barrier Pillar
Figure 49: Plan showing the stope and pillar configurations that were used to perform the parametric
modelling sessions to justify the use of the tributary area method for determining the stresses on
the “small” pillars within the barrier pillars.
72
4.4.1.5 Model Calibration to Actual Mining Conditions
It is important to calibrate numerical modelling to actual mining conditions in order to have
confidence in the modelling results. Calibration can be accomplished using two different methods:
• instrumentation can be used to measure stress change as mining progresses and can then be
compared to the modelled stress changes for the same mining sequence
• modelled stress increases can be verified visually through observation of such occurrences as an
increased frequency of ground falls or deterioration of mine openings in areas of high modelled
stress
The Westmin model was calibrated through the verification that the high stress regions in the model
corresponded to the areas of the mine having the greatest pillar deterioration as described by Table 7. There
were also a number of local failures in the mine that were correlated to areas of high modelled stresses. It was
concluded that the modelling program approximated actual stress conditions, as a result of mining in the H-W
Mine Main Zone, to a high degree of confidence and commensurate with the stress estimates subsequently
-
employed.
4.4.1.6 Numerical Modelling Summary

The sensitivity analyses performed showed that the numerical modelling results obtained are highly
dependent on the input parameters utilized. Modifying the input parameters for the Westmin model, within the
range of the collected data, resulted in predicted pillar stresses could be varied, in theory, by as much as 50%.
It is therefore, the author’s opinion that modelled stresses should be recognized as variable and not absolute
values. It must also be recognized that the difficulty in obtaining an accurate measurement of the in-situ stress
conditions can have a large impact on the variability of modelled stresses. The results from stress analysis are
dependent on both the modelling technique and the input parameters used. In spite of these limitations, the
modelling results obtained compared favourably with the conditions observed in the H-W Mine, leading one to
conclude that the correct input parameters were selected.
4.4.2 Pillar Stability Classification

The pillar stability classification method developed for use at the H-W Mine was discussed in Section
3.3 and is reproduced in Table 12. Pillar stability classification methods can be used to quantify a pillar’s
stability condition. This classification can then be used to determine the amount of available load bearing
capacity that a pillar has, provided a pillar strength relationship exists. Pillar stability classification can also be
used to monitor a pillars’ gradual deterioration as mining proceeds and if required, measures can be taken to
ensure that the pillar behaves as designed.
73
4.4.3 Pillar Geometiy
The review of pillar strength determination methods (Chapter 2) showed that the critical geometric
pillar variables are the pillar width and the pillar height. Pillar height is measured in the direction of the major
induced principal stress (01) within the pillar, and pillar width is measured in the direction perpendicular to
pillar height. The pillar geometry definition terms are defined in Figure 50.
Although it has been suggested (Wagner (1980), Sheorey & Singh (1974), Stacey & Page (1986)) that
for non-square pillars, the pillar width can be replaced by an “effective” pillar width, the width used for the
determination of the Westmin pillar strength relationship is the minimum width of the pillar. This follows the
suggestion of Salamon (1983) that there are no accepted rules about using an effective pillar width in place of
the minimum pillar width.
Table 12: Pillar stability classification method for Westmin Resources Ltd.’s H-W Mine.
Pillar stability Observed Pillar Conditions

classification
1 No Sign of Stress Induced Fracturing
2 Corner Breaking Up Only
3 Fracturing in Pillar Walls
Fractures < ½ Pillar Height in Length
Fracture Aperture <5 mm
4 Fractures> 1/2 Pillar Height in Length
Fracture Aperture> 5 mm, < 10 mm
S Disintegration of Pillar
Blocks Falling Out
Fracture aperture> 10 mm
Fractures Through_Pillar Core
4.4.4 Westmin Pillar Database

65 discrete pillars were classified at all accessible locations within the barrier pillar study domain
according to Table 12. Of the 65 discrete pillars in the database, eight are rib pillars (long side length greater
than twice the short side length), 32 are drawpoint pillars (long side I short side ratio less than two) and 25 are
nose pillars (one or more confined sides). Figure 51 illustrates the plan views of the different pillar types
classified. Nose pillars were classified with the intent of using this data to augment the drawpoint and rib pillar
database. The determination of which value to use for the width of the nose pillars proved difficult and after an
examination of these pillars in conjunction with the other data, it was concluded that these pillars should be
excluded from the database. Table 13 is the original discrete pillar database for the Westmin H-W Mine which
includes:
74
• pillar orientation
• pillar type
• rocktype
• unconfined compressive strength
• extraction ratio in the barrier at the small pillar location
• pillar stability classification
• pillar width
• pillar height
• pillar width / height ratio
• core stress calculated with Map3D
• stress ratio for the scaled core stress divided by unconfined compressive strength
• stress ratio for the scaled average stress divided by unconfined compressive strength
All of the discrete pillars in the database were photographed in order to develop a visual database to
aid in the assessment of pillar ratings. Photo 1 - Photo 5 show mine pillars for pillar stability classifications of
— “15”
4.4.5 Development of a Pillar Strength Relationship

A pillar strength relationship has been developed for Westmin mine pillars using the pillar width I
height ratio, the predicted average “small” pillar stress from numerical stress analysis using Map3D, and the
pillar stability classification. It was not possible to include the nose pillars in the final database because of the
difficulty in assessing an “effective” pillar width of these pillars.
DIRECTION
DIRECTION OF LOADING Breadth
OF LOADING
/
mined
mined
I-wi’H mined
I
W
I
----—-—
DIRECTION I
OF LOADING H
[_minedj
2D Pillar Geometry 3D Pillar Geometry
Figure 50: Definition of pillar geometry terms used at Westmin Resources Ltd.’s H-W Mine.
75
w ‘ t ‘ w
0 0 0 0 0 a ‘C ‘C ‘C ‘C ‘C ‘C ‘C ‘C ‘C ‘C ‘C ‘C ‘C ‘C ‘C ‘C ‘C ‘C
3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Lt1 L L LT L7 L 71 L1 L7 L1 (11 L11 L1 ti LT Li ti ti tri ti

z z z z z z z z ç i
c ri E E E E E E o E E E E E
W I) — 0 ‘C 00 ‘-4 0% VI —
-J ‘C 00 -4 0% Vi . ‘ t.J —
z
-
Cl) Cl) Cl) (6) Cl) Cl) Cl) Cl) Cl) Cl) Cl) Cl) Cl) (6’) Cl) Cl) (6) Cl) Cl) a a a a a Cl) (6) - c,., Cl) Cl) Cl) Cl) C’) Cl) Cl) Cl) Cl) C’)
COOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOloooOOOOoOOOoooooOo
I.) t’.) .) I.) .4 .) tJ

z z
t) t’J L.) Is) ts) Is) Is) Is) Is) Is) Is) Is) Is) Is) Is) -J Is) Is) Is) Is) Is) Is) Is) 1.3 Is) Is) Is) Is) Is) 1.4 1.4 Is) Is)
Vi Vi Vi W . . . . . ) ) . . . Vi C) VI ) U) U) U) U) U) . . U) . . Vi Vi Vi UI Vi Vi Vi VI Vi Vi Vi Vi
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
‘0000000 Vi VI 0000000000000 UI Vi Vi Vi Vi Vi Vi 000000000000000000
C’)
0 U)Is)—Is)—1.3—————O—U)l3——U)—0—QIs)O
) 61 UI . . .
t Li ‘o b 0 00 M Vi 1.) 0 1.) . # — 0 -.4 00 ‘C 0 ‘C Is) 1.4 — 0% 0 U) 00 Vi . 0 ‘C U)
00000000000a00000000000000000000pppp00pppppp
%.
ö 00 Is) 0% 0% . ‘C ‘C ‘C ‘C ‘C .. ‘C .I. . . . . -4 Vi ‘C — -) ‘.3 ‘C -) -3 00 0 00 00 00 U) . . ‘.4 - 1-) Is) . U) U) U) ‘
00000000000000000000000pp0000p0ppppppppppppppp>
‘.3 . . .
. — ‘C 0% — ‘C U) U) Vi UlVi U)—)-) ‘C’C-) .Is.Vi -3. — — Vi— — U)00 - - — . o
0%
rj
() w
-o w c
Co
-.o
D
U)
0. 0 C,
co 3 CD zzzzzz111
: I-.
(n_’ —
CD
D
-o
0
0
-‘
-
a a c’ c c c, c’ CCD c c. CCD g
0000000000CD 00000
0
0 t) (.) I-.) t) () I-.) C’.) C’.) C’) —) C’) C’) C’) C’) C’)
OD
-o CD c3.
o . - .
v v v u w - (A-(A (A (A (A (A (A .
0 :. 0Q0Ui00000000000000
C -o
< 0
CD Q.
0 (A(A(A—(A)(A(A(A(AV
D
I -‘) . 0% 0 W C’) C’) —.J . W W - ) (A (A -.
E
IA o
. W . . (A (A (A . - 4 P. P. P. P. (A CD
•0 A 0 (A 0 0 0 (A (A 0 0 0 0 (A (A (A (A 0
————000——00t--p——
CC
0’ W W W (A (A (A (A (A W (A (A (A (A (A (A (A (A (A
z (A (A (A (A (A (A (A (A 0 0 (A (A (A (A (A (A (A (A tI. CD
DO 0
C,)
CD
0000000000000 p p o 00 O
-
a-
CD
t. b% o IA b% b% 0% 0% C-.) 0% (A —) 0% 0 0 0% 0%
-o -P. 00
-P. -P. -P. .P. .P. LA 00 -P. C..) (A C -P. - -P. -
(0
0
-‘ 00000000 p p p p p p p p p p >
IA IA IA IA IA C’) -P. (A 4 0% (A (A (A (A (A
Photo 1: A class “5” discrete pillar located within the 366 barrier pillar.
78
4,
Photo 4: A class “2” discreto pillar located within the 383 barrier pillar.
79
;..
•
r
•1’ ‘st)
4.-
,.
Photo 5: A class “1.5” discrete pillar located within the 383 barrier pillar.
4.4.5.1 Pillar Stability Plots

The average pillar stress, calculated as described earlier, normalized to unconfined compressive
strength of the intact pillar material has been plotted against pillar width / height ratio with a different symbol
for each pillar stability classification. Figure 52 and Figure 53 are stability plots of massive sulphide drawpoint
and rib pillars and massive sulphide nose pillars, respectively. It can be seen from these plots that pillars of
higher pillar stability classification plot farther to the left and higher on the graphs, in locations of higher
stresses and/or lower width I height ratios.
4.4.5.1 .1 Excluded Pillars

Seven “small” drawpoint or rib pillars were excluded from the database for the construction of the
final stability graph, Figure 54. These pillars were excluded because it was concluded that the pillar stresses in
these instances could not be assessed with confidence using the numerical modelling methods employed. These
pillars were all located in the same barrier pillar and were excluded for one of the two following reasons:
80
0.7
0.6
0
0 v
-- -v
0 X
0 0
C.., x x
v V a.
00
----------“-------
e
a)
x
<0.2---
0.1•
38 Observations
0.0• I I I I I I I
0.0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.0 2.4 2.8 3.2
Pillar Width / Height Ratio
Pillar Stability Classification
5 0 4 v 3 x 2
Figure 52: Stability plot of massive sulphide, drawpoint and rib pillars from the H-W Mine.
0.7
0.6
0 0
C)
x
0 0 VV
z 0
<0.2
0.1
18 Observations
0.0• I I I I I I
0.0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.0 2.4 2.8 3.2
[0 o v x 2 a.
Figure 53: Stability plot of massive suiphide, nose pillars from the H-W Mine.
81
• The H-W hangingwall fault is in close proximity to the orebody in the vicinity of the barrier pillar.
It was concluded that the assessment of the pillar stress and the effects of stress redisthbution
could not be adequately compensated for using the methods previously developed for pillar stress
determination.
• In portions of the barrier pillar there are up to three levels of “stacked” development openings
and it was concluded that the methodology used to estimate the “small” pillar stress was
inadequate to account for these geometric conditions.
4.4.5.2 Division of Pillar Classes

In order to develop the Westmin pillar strength relationship, the pillar database from the massive
suiphide drawpoint and rib pillars has been analyzed. Only the massive suiphide pillars were used in the
analysis because there are insufficient cases from pillars consisting of dyke (two cases) and hangingwall
volcanics (seven cases) to justify their inclusion. The strength relationship developed also does not consider the
“excluded” pillars as mentioned previously. A total of 31 pillar case histories are used to locate the pillar
stability class division lines.
Pillar stability classifications were analyzed and the pillar stability classification division lines were
determined according to the following methodology. Systematic analysis of the database involved comparing
all pillars above a particular class division to all of the pillars below the same class division. For example: to
locate the class “3” - “4” division line, a “bestfit” line dividing the class “4” and “5” pillars and the class
“1”, “2” and “3” pillars was drawn, based upon the author’s judgment, on the pillar stability plot. This
procedure was repeated for each of the classification divisions resulting in four “preliminary” classification
division lines.
After the “preliminary” classification division lines were determined, the division lines were reviewed
as a group to ensure that the slopes’ of each of the division lines were consistent with each other. It was
concluded that the ratio of the slope between the different classification division lines should be constant for
differing width I height ratios, i.e. the strength of a class “3” - “2” pillar is always a fixed ratio (as an
example) higher than the strength of a class “2” - “1” pillar. Using this approach, “refined” stability lines
were located for the selected massive suiphide drawpoint and rib pillars. These “refined” stability
classification division lines are presented along with the selected pillar database on Figure 54.
82
0.7-
F.S.—1.0
—
F—11
• —
— 0 —
- F.S.—1.2
- — —
C., — —
__-_-—__‘v--——_
— —_—
— F.S.—1.4
— —
z
—
— —
— — —
0.4 P---
— — —
—
C.., — — x
— —
—
0.3
x
0.2
0.1
Ps_UCS*(0.25+0.18*(w/h))
31 Observations
0.0- I I I I I
0.0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.0 2.4 2.8 3.2
[ 5 4 V 3 2 jJ
Figure 54: Stability plot with the stability classification division lines, for massive sulphide, drawpoint and
rib pillars from the H-W Mine. The excluded pillars are not plotted on this figure.
There are a three salient points that must be considered when reviewing Figure 54 as follows:
• There are ten class “5” pillars that plot well above the class “4” - “5” division line. It is the
author’s conclusion that these pillars show exaggerated modelled stresses because an elastic
numerical model has been used. Modelled pillars have an infinite strength and as a result, they
continue to take stresses in the model beyond the point at which they would have failed in the
mine. In reality these pillars would have failed earlier in the mining sequence than the mining
stage that was modelled, and consequently would have lower predicted stresses. This would place
these pillars at a lower point on the stability graph, in closer proximity to the class “4” - “5”
division line.
• In consideration of the previous point, 31 pillars have been used to locate the stability lines,
however only 21 can be used with confidence if the previous 10 are removed. It can also be seen
from Figure 54, that there is a wide margin for locating the stability lines. Statistical methods
could have been used to locate the stability lines, however it is the author’s conclusion that there is
insufficient data (21 cases for 5 regions) to use conventional statistical methods to locate the
stability classification division lines and have confidence in their placement.
83
• The placement of the stability lines and the slopes chosen may seem arbitrary, however, in the
next chapter an in depth analysis is performed with a comprehensive database which will support
the placement of the lines in this manner.
4.4.5.3 Factor of Safety

Each of the stability classification division lines has been assigned a factor of safety based upon the
ultimate pillar strength (failure). The calculation of factor of safety is based upon the assumption that the “4” -
“5” stability classification division line represents failure and therefore has a factor of safety of 1.0. Using this
as a baseline, the location of each of the other stability classification division lines were determined to have
calculated factors of safety as presented in Table 14.
Having assigned a factor of safety to each pillar stability classification, the pillar stability classification
method can be used as a means of assessing the current factor of safety for any given pillar. This enables
Westmin Resources Ltd. to quickly determine the condition of pillars and their proximity to failure through the
use of a pillar stability classification method.
Table 14: Factor of safety determined for pillar stability classification division lines.
Pillar Factor of Safety

Stability Classification
5 F.S.<l.O
4 l.0<F.S.<1.l
3 l.1<F.S.<1.2
2 l.2<F.S.<1.4
1 F.S.>l.4
4.4.5.4 Stability Line with Individual Data Sets

The final stability classification division lines are plotted against subsets of the pillar database which were not
included in the analysis. The classification division lines are those which were derived from the selected
massive sulphide drawpoint and rib pillar data. Figure 55 is a plot of the pillar database that includes the
excluded pillars in the database. It can be seen that the seven excluded pillars all plot in regions of lower pillar
stability classification than their respective classification predicts. Figure 56 is a plot of the massive sulphide
nose pillar data that was excluded from the selected pillar stability graph. These pillars were excluded based
upon the difficult in assessing a pillar width, however, it is interesting to note that even though the data in this
subset does not fit the stability lines, it still follows the same general form, with pillars of higher stability
classification falling higher and farther to the left on the graph, and pillars of lower stability classification
falling to the right and lower on the graph.
84
0.7
F.S.—1.0
— ps—Il
• -
- —
__.I__ - — — — F.S.—l.2
0.5 - _—,Z__
— — F.S.—1.4
- — — —
— — —
— — —
0.4 _.. _-
C’, — — — I —
—
— — — V V
03 •--•
0.1
Ps_UCS*(0.25+O.18*(w/h))
38 Observations
0.0 I I I I
0.0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.0 2.4 2.8 3.2
5 0 4 V 3 1 2
Figure 55: Stability plot with the stability classification division lines, for massive suiphide, drawpoint and
rib pillars from the H-W Mine. All drawpoint and rib pillars are included on this figure.
0.7 -
F.S.—1.0
—
- F.S.—l.1
0.6-
-
_- - _- F.S.-I.2
C’, — —
z — — — — — — —
_. F.S.—1.4
— — — —
— —
—
.w —
—
— —
_-
_— —
— — I
• •—•
—
0.1---
Ps=UCS*(0.25+0.18*(w/h)) 18 Observations
0•0 I I I I I
0.0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.0 2.4 2.8 3.2
5 0 4 V 3 I 2
Figure 56: Stability plot with the stability classification division lines, for massive sulphide, nose pillars.
85
4.4.5.5 Pillar Strength Relationship
It was shown in the previous section that pillars that are of the same rock type, similar pillar type, and
similar size can be combined to form a pillar stability graph as in Figure 54. The stability graph developed for
the Westmin pillar database has been constructed using straight lines and as discussed in Section 2.2.1.1, a
pillar stability graph that is constructed using straight lines is a “Linear Shape Effect” relationship. One can
recall that the “Linear Shape Effect” is defined by the following equation:
Ps=(K.UCS).[A+B()] (33)
where:
= Pillar strength (MPa)
K = Strength size constant
UCS = Unconfined compressive strength of pillar material (MPa)
A, B = Empirically derived constants which when added equal 1.0
The class “4” - “5” division can, based upon its linearity, be defined by a relationship in the same
form as Equation 33. The empirical coefficients, “A” “B” & “K”, calculated for this division line are
presented in Equation 34.
P = (0.45. UCS) . [0.6 + 0.4 (-i)] (34)
where:
UCS = Unconfined compressive strength = 172 MPa
It should be noted that the pillar stress on Figure 54 has been normalized to the unconfined
compressive strength of intact pillar material. This may be slightly misleading, as all of the pillars included on
Figure 54, the “Selected Pillar Stability Graph “, are massive sulphide with an unconfined compressive
strength of 172 MPa. Hoek & Brown (1980) and Hudyma (1988) both suggest that the unconfined compressive
strength of intact pillar material can be used as a normalizing term for computing pillar strength. This
approach is used so that pillars of different rock types can be compared with each other. The data is presented
normalized at this point in preparation for the integration of this data with data from literature that will be
discussed in Chapter 5.
86
4.5 CHAPTER SUMMARY
Pillar stability classification and numerical modelling techniques have been applied successfully to
develop a strength relationship for massive sulphide drawpoint and rib pillars at Westmin Resources Ltd.’s H
W Mine. The relationship developed is a “Linear Shape Effect Formula” as discussed in Section 2.2.1.1. The
five stage failure classification developed for the assessment of pillar stability has been used successfully and
can now be used to assess factor of safety of pillars that are in a state of pre-failure. The results presented in
this chapter can now be used at Westmin Resources Ltd.’s H-W Mine to design mine pillars based upon local
experience.
87
5. NEW PILLAR STRENGTH FORMULAE
In Chapter 4 a strength relationship for pillars at Westmin Resources Ltd.’s H-W Mine was developed.
A limitation of this relationship is that it is based upon a small number of pillars of similar’ dimension and the
same rock type. In this chapter we will examine the “Westmin Database” along with other available published
strength information for hard rock mine pillars. Refined empirical “Shape Effect” strength formulae will be
derived and a new hypothesis for pillar strength estimation will be presented. Average pillar confinement is
examined and an alternative term to width / height ratio is proposed based upon two-dimensional elastic
boundary element modelling. Empirical strength constants for the “Linear Shape Effect” and the “Power
Shape Effect” formulae are derived for the combined pillar database. A refined “Power Shape Effect” formula,
“The Log-Power Shape Effect Formula” is developed. In addition a new pillar strength formula, “The
Confinement Formula”, is developed that has a form similar to the Mohr-Coulomb shear strength formula.
The basic components of the pillar strength formulae are examined. The proposed strength formulae are be
compared against existing formulae and are shown to have the highest success in the prediction of pillar
stability for the case histories in the combined database.
This chapter is divided into four major sections as follows:
• the database’s that are used to develop the new strength formulae
• an investigation of the variables and methodology used to develop the new strength formulae
• the development the new strength formulae
• verification that the new strength formulae outperform the methods that have preceded them
5.1 PILLAR DATABASE

In addition to the data that was presented in Chapter 4, there are six sources of pillar strength data
available in literature. The published comprehensive data which is available is the work of Hudyma (1988),
Von Kimnielman et al. (1984), and Hedley & Grant (1972). The published supporting data which is available
is the work of Krauland & Soder (1987), Sjoberg (1992) and Brady (1977). These databases are discussed in
the following section. Each of the databases are presented along with the “common” pillar stability
classification that has been developed for the combined database. The assignment of the “common” pillar
stability classification is discussed in Section 5.2.3.6.
88
5.1.1 Westmin Database
The Westmin database was discussed in detail in Chapter 4 and will be presented here in summary
form for consistency. The information in the Westmin database was collected throughout the Main Zone
orebody of the H-W Mine of Westmin Resources Ltd., Myra Falls Operations. Data from 31 selected pillar case
histories, from a total database of 65 pillar case histories, has been used to derive a pillar strength relationship.
The Westmin orebody is a massive sulphide, copper-zinc orebody located at an average depth of 600
metres below surface. Pillars have been classified according to the pillar stability classification method
presented in Section 3.3. The classified pillars are rib pillars and drawpoint pillars that have been developed
within larger barrier pillars, as illustrated in Figure 46. The orebody rock has a unconfined compressive
strength of 172 MPa and a Young’s modulus of 166 GPa.
Stresses on individual “small” pillars were determined using three-dimensional boundary element
methods to determine stresses on the larger barrier pillars, and then employing tributary area theory, as
discussed Section 4.4.1.4, to estimate the average “small” pillar stresses.
Mining methods employed at Westmin have been blasthole open stoping, cut-and-fill, and room-and
pillar. Blasthole open stoping methods are used predominantly at the present time. Hydraulically placed
backfill is used in all stopes, however, all of the pillars that have been used for strength determination are
located on development horizons and as such are not overly influenced by backfill placement. The summary
database is presented in Table 15.
5.1.2 Hudyma (1988)

Hudyma (1988) presented data on 47 pillar case histories which were collected as part of “The
Integrated Mine Design Project” commissioned by NSERC, Noranda Research and Falconbridge Ltd. in 1986.
Twelve failed, nine sloughing and 26 stable pillar case histories were presented from thirteen different mines to
develop the “Pillar Stability Graph” method of designing open stope rib pillars. Thirty of the case histories
were generated from thirteen pillars. All of the pillars within the database are open stope rib pillars.
Assessment of pillar stability was generally obtained from observation and description by on-site staff.
Sloughing pillars were defined as showing one or more of the following signs:
• cracking and spalling in development and raises within the rib pillar
• audible noise in the pillar
• deformed drill holes
• excess muck being pulled from stopes (dilution)
• cracking of pillars
• major displacements within the pillar
89
Pillar failure was defined as showing large displacements and severe signs of instability that may have
necessitated immediate stope backfilling to prevent total pillar collapse. The unconfined compressive strength
of the pillar material ranged between 70 MPa and 316 MPa. Rock mass ratings (RMR) varied from
60 -78% for all of the case histories. Premining stresses varied between 12 and 46 MPa. Pillar stresses were
calculated using two-dimensional boundary element methods. Both fictitious force and displacement
discontinuity methods were used depending upon the mining geometry.
The original Hudyma (1988) database is presented in Table 16 and Table 17. Figure 57 is the “Pillar
Stability Graph” developed by Hudyma (1988) showing the pillar loading paths of pillars that made up more
than one case history in the database. Table 18 is the summary database for Hudyma (1988).
Table 15: Westmin Resources Ltd., summary pillar database.

Pillar Pillar Pillar Cpav UCS Average Common Pillar
Width Height Width/Height Pillar Stress Stability
(m) (m) Ratio (MPa) (MPa) Classification
5.9 4.0 1.48 0.17 172 49.6 Stable
7.2 4.0 1.80 0.23 172 56.7 Stable
7.8 4.0 1.95 0.25 172 99.9 Unstable
4.8 4.0 1.20 0.11 172 77.9 Unstable
4.6 4.0 1.15 0.10 172 70.8 Unstable
3.5 4.0 0.88 0.04 172 70.8 Unstable
8.7 5.0 1.74 0.22 172 85.0 Unstable
7.6 4.0 1.90 0.24 172 91.8 Unstable
5.1 4.0 1.28 0.13 172 63.8 Unstable
12.1 4.0 3.03 0.36 172 91.8 Unstable
5.9 4.0 1.48 0.17 172 63.8 Unstable
12.0 4.0 3.00 0.36 172 42.5 Unstable
7.8 4.0 1.95 0.25 172 77.9 Unstable
4.6 4.5 1.02 0.07 172 93.5 Failed
4.6 4.5 1.02 0.07 172 93.5 Failed
5.6 4.0 1.40 0.15 172 93.5 Failed
6.3 4.0 1.58 0.19 172 93.5 Failed
5.4 5.0 1.08 0.08 172 93.5 Failed
4.7 5.0 0.94 0.05 172 93.5 Failed
3.9 4.5 0.87 0.04 172 93.5 Failed
5.8 4.5 1.29 0.13 172 93.5 Failed
4.0 4.0 1.00 0.06 172 93.5 Failed
5.9 4.0 1.48 0.17 172 105.4 Failed
5.5 4.0 1.38 0.15 172 93.5 Failed
5.7 4.0 1.43 0.16 172 105.4 Failed
5.2 4.0 1.30 0.13 172 98.6 Failed
5.3 4.0 1.33 0.14 172 91.8 Failed
4.8 5.0 0.96 0.05 172 88.4 Failed
7.1 4.0 1.78 0.22 172 98.6 Failed
4.3 4.0 1.08 0.08 172 93.5 Failed
3.1 5.0 0.62 0.01 172 93.5 Failed
90
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
00 =
.o
00
C’ c 0,v)
r/) C) Cl) Cl) (/)
E Cl) 00’0’0’00’0’0’0’0%0%0’0%00 00000 00 W Ifl
>1 00 0 0%0%O%Oo 000
—
I
C c’l N NO W ‘r v V ‘fl fl 0000000000000000 0 — — ‘fl V) ‘fl ‘f I( 0
Cl) %0’0%0%0 N N%0NNr N N N NN N NN r-t- N%0’0’O%0%0’0 N N N%0%0’0’0 0%0%O’D N N N N NN N N
00 v c n v . %0 N ‘t ‘0 00 ‘0 N N ‘00000 v N ‘0 ‘000 N .n C V N ‘0 ‘0 ‘0 fl ‘0 ‘0 ‘0 N N ()
0 O00000000O00000000 ) OO0 00000000000000000
E
-
c’i C-
0000
— — ‘0 N N 0 0 0 0 0
(4C’’0%0’0’0
(4 C’ C’l C’ 0’ 0% 0 0 0 0 0 C’l
fl fl
— — 16) 16) 5’) — —
— to
00 ...,0 0000000000000000 00._.._.,_._ 000 0.2 .2 .2 .2 0000 0,-.
——r’
.261 0
0%
0Q000000000000
0% 0% 0% 0000 ‘00% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
0000000000000000000000000000000
0%
0% 0% 0% 0’ 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% N N N NO’ 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0s 0% 0% 0%
0’ 0%
c-!
16) 0% 0 0 00 N — “) 0 0 0 0 0 C’ N 0% N C’ — 0 00 — 0 00 C’ 16) fl 00 00 00 00 00 00 0 %0 e’ C4 00
It) (q C’) C.) — — — - — C.) C’) — C.) C’) — C’) C’) — C’) C’) — — ‘) C’) C’) C’) — — It) It) C’)
0’
.2 C’) C.) ‘0 ‘0 00 00 0 — — ‘.0 ‘0 ‘0 ‘0 ‘0 ‘0 ‘0 ‘.0 ‘0 ‘0 ‘0 ‘0 N N N N N N 0’ 0’ 0’ 0’ —
(‘)‘)
— — — C’)
C’)C’’)
C.) C.)
C.)C’)
ci m
ciC’.)C.)
0
%0 z
4
II)
ciC’N 00
— — — — — UI UI UI UI — — — —
UI 0 0 0 0 0 00 00 U UI Vi UI l UI UI UI UI UI UI Vi Vi UI UI 4 4 4 - 4 0%
UI 0 p Ii. UI — Vi Z Z t9 VI UI Vi VI t-) — t4 0 UI Vie - ‘ —

Z Z o — - — — —
00
00
- 00 - UI Z Z . . U -4 J %C - UJ 0% 4 Z 4 UI W 4 4 %0 ‘0 4 t-J I’.) 0% Vi 0% UI
0 9 4 0 00 ‘0 . W — J
‘-0 0 0% UI %0 0 00 — — 00 0% 0 0% . ‘0 - U 00 ‘0 00 — 0 ‘0 ‘0 00 ‘0 Vi —
>
0 0 c -
Z p p p Z Z Z 00 p p —. p - — e oo 0 00 w 0— — 00 0 0
-4 1-4 4 * 0 0 -4 Os e Os —4 Vi UI —I U 0 t.3 — 0 00 4 — 00 00 00 -4 4 4 -4 00 0 ‘0 -4 UI Os 0’ s
- . -
Z UI UI U W W Z Z Z Z o UI 0% U — W -3 W W .i e’-) . 0% 0% t) 4 i-.) 00 0% UI
U . UI 0%X 0% 0% 0%00%O — I) 000000 ——000—4-O%00 Li0% 4U0UI-4
> . W%O000UI
A V V A A A A A A A SA A A A bA A A A A V A A A 1A A
I S S S S S S S I
00 00 0
b j ± 5
>
V) V Cfj fl
0 0 0 0 0 C C - 0 C 0 C C C - C 0 C 0 0 _C — - — — - C C — —
r tO tO to to - to (0 (0 (0 (0 tO
-
Table 18: Hudyma (1988), summary pillar database.
24.0 52.0 0.46 0.00 265 38.0 Stable
21.0 39.0 0.54 0.00 176 26.0 Stable
27.0 40.0 0.68 0.01 176 28.0 Stable
30.0 44.0 0.68 0.01 265 40.0 Stable
30.0 40.0 0.75 0.02 176 33.0 Stable
30.0 40.0 0.75 0.03 176 29.0 Stable
45.0 53.0 0.85 0.03 200 51.0 Stable
21.0 24.0 0.88 0.04 176 29.0 Stable
21.0 21.0 1.00 0.06 100 31.0 Stable
21.0 21.0 1.00 0.06 100 26.0 Stable
32.0 28.0 1.14 0.10 90 30.0 Stable
15.0 12.0 1.25 0.12 176 37.0 Stable
15.0 12.0 1.25 0.12 176 33.0 Stable
24.0 18.0 1.33 0.14 72 36.0 Stable
33.0 23.0 1.43 0.16 316 75.0 Stable
12.0 8.0 1.50 0.17 215 28.0 Stable
33.0 20.0 1.65 0.20 121 55.0 Stable
17.0 10.0 1.70 0.21 310 46.0 Stable
15.0 7.0 2.14 0.28 215 29.0 Stable
24.0 11.0 2.18 0.28 148 66.0 Stable
33.0 15.0 2.20 0.38 316 76.0 Stable
20.0 8.0 2.50 0.32 310 46.0 Stable
17.0 6.0 2.83 0.34 72 31.0 Stable
35.0 12.0 2.92 0.35 148 63.0 Stable
21.0 5.0 4.20 0.41 72 39.0 Stable
18.0 4.0 4.50 0.42 72 48.0 Stable
24.0 52.0 0.46 0.00 265 72.0 Unstable
15.0 27.0 0.56 0.00 176 28.0 Unstable
27.0 46.0 0.59 0.00 265 59.0 Unstable
24.0 38.0 0.63 0.01 160 70.0 Unstable
30.0 44.0 0.68 0.01 265 82.0 Unstable
15.0 18.0 0.83 0.03 100 31.0 Unstable
25.0 28.0 0.89 0.04 90 32.0 Unstable
25.0 27.0 0.93 0.05 70 29.0 Unstable
15.0 15.0 1.00 0.06 176 43.0 Unstable
15.0 49.0 0.31 0.00 200 64.0 Failed
9.0 20.0 0.45 0.00 100 38.0 Failed
11.0 23.0 0.48 0.00 316 99.0 Failed
15.0 30.0 0.50 0.00 100 38.0 Failed
14.0 28.0 0.50 0.00 90 49.0 Failed
11.0 20.0 0.55 0.00 121 69.0 Failed
15.0 27.0 0.56 0.00 176 31.0 Failed
11.0 18.0 0.61 0.00 316 102.0 Failed
27.0 40.0 0.68 0.01 176 38.0 Failed
19.0 28.0 0.68 0.01 90 41.0 Failed
30.0 40.0 0.75 0.02 176 57.0 Failed
15.0 18.0 0.83 0.03 100 40.0 Failed
93
OPEN STOPE RIB PU..LAR DATA
0.60
0.50 -
a
0.40
(I)
C)
0.30 -
0
-j
0.20
/
-
a
/ 0
a
0
a
0.10 - /
0.00 -
I I I I I I I I I I I
0.0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.0 2.4
PILLAR WIDTH/PILLAR HEIGHT

0 STABLE + SLOUGHING 0 FAILURE
Figure 57: Hudyma pillar stability graph with all the pillars that made up more than one case history joined
to indicate loading paths that pillars were subjected to (after Hudyma, 1988).
5.1.3 Von Kimmelman et al. (1984)

Von Kimmelman et al. (1984) presented data on pillar stability and numerical modelling techniques
from the Selbi-Phikwe Mines of BCL Ltd. in South Africa. The orebody is a strata bound massive sulphide
deposit located between 80 and 400 metres in depth. Figure 58 is a plan view of the layout of the pillar area for
the case histories. The intact rock mass strength properties are given in Table 19. Data was collected
regarding pillar stability from forty seven square pillars and ten long pillars.
A three stage pillar stability classification system was used to categorize pillar stability as follows:
• “A” minor spalling, no joint opening

-
• “B” prominent spalling

-
• “C” severe spalling, pronounced opening of joints, deformation of drill holes

-
Only the square pillars were included in the development of the new strength formulae because of the
difficulty of assessing an “effective width” of long pillars as previously discussed.
Twenty two pillars were classified as “C”, six pillars were classified as “B/C”, fourteen pillars were
classified as “B”, and fifteen pillars were classified as “A”. Pillar stresses were calculated using
94
MINSIMINFOLD, a two-dimensional displacement discontinuity boundary element modelling program. Von
Kimmelman et al.’s (1984) original database is presented in Table 20 and the summary database is presented in
Table 21.
Table 19: Summary of rock properties from the Selbi-Phikwe Mines (after Von Kiminelman et al. 1984)
Rock Type UCS Young’s Modulus Poissons Ratio

(MPa) (GPa)
Hangingwall Rock 89.0 88.8 0.25
Massive Sulphide 94.1 81.1 0.24
Footwall Rock 189.1 90.7 0.26
5.1.4 Hedley & Grant (1972)

Hedley & Grant (1972) published a study on hard rock pillar stability assessment from data collected
at uranium mines in the Elliot lake district of Ontario. Twenty eight pillar case histories were used to develop
an empirical strength formula based upon the work of Salamon & Munro (1967). Hedley & Grant’s (1972)
data was comprised of 23 stable, two partially failed and three crushed pillars. Extensive work by Kostak &
Bielenstein (1971) on small scale strength testing, resulted in unconfined compressive strength estimates of
between 210 and 275 MPa for 50 mm samples. Pillar stresses were determined using Hedley & Grant’s (1972)
modification of tributary area theory as presented in Section 2.1.1.3.
In order to utilize this data with the rest of the combined database, a unconfined compressive strength
of 210 MPa was used as the strength of Elliot Lake rocks. This was based upon the use of a common strength
size factor, “K”, which is discussed in detail in Section 5.2.4.1. This is the only database for which input
parameters, the unconfined compressive strength, have been modified from the originally published values.
The original and summary data are presented in Table 22 and Table 23 respectively.
5.1.5 Sjoberg (1992)

Sjoberg (1992) presented a summary of rock mechanics data from the Zinkgruvan Mine in south
central Sweden. Included in this was data on nine pillars, five of which were classified as failed and four of
which were classified as being in a pre-failure stage but subjected to severe spalling. The Zinkgruvan rock
mass is homogeneous and massive, exhibiting a low joint frequency. The intact rock stength is 215-265 MPa
(Sjoberg & TilIman, 1990) and the Young’s modulus is 75-85 GPa. Pillar stresses were calculated using
MINSJM-2D, two-dimensional displacement discontinuity stress modelling program. The summary pillar
database is presented in Table 24.
95
F o.o £o-40
IIPO
XX o-eo
UPe
Figure 58: Plan of classified mine pillars at the Selbi-Phikwe Mines (after Von Kimmelman et al., 1984).
5.1.6 Krauland & Soder (1987)

Krauland & Soder (1987) presented information on a number of pillars from the Black Angel Mine, a
room-and-pillar-operation, of Boliden Minerals AB at Marmolik, Greenland. Data was presented on 14 class
“3” pillars (refer to Section 3.1) from “Area E” of the Black Angel Mine. Pillar stresses were calculated using
NFOLD (as described previously), a two-dimensional displacement discontinuity program. The intact strength
of the Black Angel rock is 100 MPa (Golder Associates, 1983). These pillars were approximately square in
dimension. The summary pillar database is presented in Table 25.
96
0
El
—
00 e)
0
I
I
-
0)
CD
I
J’0-
.%D0VI0%0000’C00-J—’0W0%00bo0
(I) —
00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 CO 0000 0 bo bo oo bo oo o ,o oo bo jo bo oc oo 00 o
PPPPt--00000 000
88888 8 8 S S S
0ppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp
..J Vi 4. Vi — — 0 ‘.0 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0 0% - ‘C — VI 0% VI b t..) 0 0 0 . — VI c. W VI — —.1 I-.) .. t) 0% W .. VI ‘0 0% I-.) — —
‘0 ‘0 ‘.0 ‘.0 ‘.0 ‘.0 ‘.0 ‘.0 ‘0 ‘0 ‘0 ‘0 ‘0 ‘0 ‘0 ‘0 ‘0 ‘.0 ‘0 ‘0 ‘0 ‘0 ‘0 ‘0 ‘0 ‘0 ‘.0 ‘0 ‘0 ‘0 ‘0 ‘0 ‘0 ‘0 ‘0 ‘.0 ‘.0 ‘0 ‘0 ‘0 ‘0 ‘0 ‘.0 ‘0 ‘0 ‘0 SO
S S 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
•0 0 0 0 0 0 b b b 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0,
:
00
Table 22: Hedley & Grant (1972) original pillar database. (after Hedley & Grant, 1972)
Depth Dip Extraction Width Height Stress Strength

(feet) (degrees) (%) (feet) (feet) (psi) (psi)
Stable Pillars
500 17 85 10 10 5000 14.600
700 17 85 10 10 6400 14600
800 26 65 20 18 3800 13300
850 20 85 10 10 7600 14600
950 II 85 10 10 7500 14600
1000 22 65 20 18 4000 13300
1050 15 85 10 10 8500 14600
1200 18 85 10 10 9400 14600
1300 20 65 20 20 4600 12300
1600 20 60 20 18 4800 13300
1600 20 65 18 18 5400 12600
1600 22 75 20 14 7600 16000
1700 22 65 40 20 5800 17400
1700 22 60 22 20 5000 12900
1700 12 75 20 14 7600 16000
1800 5 75 20 14 8000 16000
1900 23 65 19 18 6400 13000
2200 25 65 20 20 7200 12300
2400 1I 65 20 8 7600 24400
2500 9 65 20 8 7900 24400
2700 13 65 20 8 8600 24400
2900 12 70 15 9 10500 19400
2900 12 75 20 9 12600 22400

Partially Failed Pillars
14001• 20 85 10 10 11400 14.600
24001 18 80 10 9 13400 15800

Crushed Pillars
2800 12 80 10 9 15200 15800
2900 12 80 10 9 15700 15800
3400 5 80 15 10 18500 17900
99
Table 23: Hedley & Grant (1972), summary pillar database.
Pillar Pillar Pillar Cpa,, UCS Average Common Pillar

3.0 3.0 1.00 0.06 210 34.5 Stable
3.0 3.0 1.00 0.06 210 44.1 Stable
6.1 5.5 1.11 0.09 210 26.2 Stable
3.0 3.0 1.00 0.06 210 52.4 Stable
3.0 3.0 1.00 0.06 210 51.7 Stable
6.1 5.5 1.11 0.09 210 27.6 Stable
3.0 3.0 1.00 0.06 210 58.6 Stable
3.0 3.0 1.00 0.06 210 64.8 Stable
6.1 6.1 1.00 0.06 210 31.7 Stable
6.1 5.5 1.11 0.09 210 33.1 Stable
5.5 5.5 1.00 0.06 210 37.2 Stable
6.1 4.3 1.43 0.16 210 52.4 Stable
12.2 6.1 2.00 0.26 210 40.0 Stable
6.7 6.1 1.10 0.09 210 34.5 Stable
6.1 4.3 1.43 0.16 210 52.4 Stable
6.1 4.3 1.43 0.16 210 55.2 Stable
5.8 5.5 1.06 0.08 210 44.1 Stable
6.1 6.1 1.00 0.06 210 49.7 Stable
6.1 2.4 2.50 0.32 210 52.4 Stable
6.1 2.4 2.50 0.32 210 54.5 Stable
6.1 2.4 2.50 0.32 210 59.3 Stable
4.6 2.7 1.67 0.21 210 72.4 Stable
6.1 2.7 2.22 0.29 210 86.9 Stable
3.0 3.0 1.00 0.06 210 78.6 Unstable
3.0 2.7 1.11 0.09 210 92.4 Unstable
3.0 2.7 1.11 0.09 210 104.8 Failed
3.0 2.7 1.11 0.09 210 108.3 Failed
4.6 3.0 1.50 0.17 210 127.6 Failed
5.1.7 Brady (1977)

Brady (1977) presented data from a sill pillar at Mt. Isa Mines located in Australia. Two stable
observations and one failed observation of the pillar were made as mining progressed towards the pillar. Finite
element modelling was used to determine stresses on the sill pillar. The summary pillar database is presented
in Table 26.
5.1.8 Database Summary

All of the data included in the combined database represents mines that have pillars developed within
good to very good quality rock masses (RMR 60-85%). Major structural failure was not recognized as a
contributing factor to pillar instability. Five of the seven databases are from within massive suiphide orebodies.
Pillar stresses were calculated using either tributary area theory or numerical modelling techniques for all
databases. A pillar strength relationship can therefore be developed for good quality, hard rock (predominantly
massive sulphide) orebodies where structurally influenced failure is not a factor.
100
Table 24: Sjoberg (1992), summary pillar database.

3.8 6.0 0.63 0.01 244) 68.0 Unstable
6.0 6.0 1.00 0.06 240 84.0 Unstable
6.2 6.0 1.03 0.07 240 74.0 Unstable
7.3 6.0 1.22 0.11 240 67.0 Unstable
4.7 6.0 0.78 0.02 240 95.0 Failed
7.5 6.0 1.25 0.12 240 83.0 Failed
7.5 6.0 1.25 0.12 240 100.0 Failed
8.5 6.0 1.42 0.16 240 82.0 Failed
10.5 6.0 1.75 0.22 240 92.0 Failed
Table 25: Krauland & Soder (1987), summary pillar database.

n/a n/a 0.88 0.04 100 39.3 Unstable
n/a n/a 0.88 0.04 100 47.5 Unstable
n/a n/a 0.83 0.03 100 31.0 Unstable
n/a n/a 0.74 0.02 100 29.0 Unstable
n/a n/a 0.74 0.02 100 31.0 Unstable
n/a n/a 0.66 0.01 100 47.5 Unstable
n/a n/a 0.62 0.01 100 31.0 Unstable
n/a n/a 0.59 0.00 tOO 29.0 Unstable
n/a n/a 0.55 0.00 100 29.0 Unstable
n/a n/a 0.53 0.00 100 31.0 Unstable
n/a n/a 0.51 0.00 100 37.0 Unstable
n/a n/a 0.47 0.00 100 41.4 Unstable
n/a n/a 0.45 0.00 100 25.0 Unstable
Table 26: Brady (1977), summary pillar database.
Pillar Pillar Pillar CPav UCS Average Common Pillar

n/a n/a 2.33 0.30 170 39.3 Stable
n/a n/a 2.33 0.30 170 55.6 Stable
n/a n/a 1.00 0.06 170 88.7 Failed
101
5.2 HARD ROCK PILLAR STRENGTH FORMULAE DERIVATION
In this section the databases presented in the previous section will be investigated along with the
variables that are necessary to make estimations of pillar strength. A refined empirical strength formula, “The
Log-Power Shape Effect Formula”, and a new pillar strength formula, “The Confinement Formula”, are
presented.
5.2.1 Empirical Strength Formula Derivation Methodology

In order to derive the empirical strength formulae presented in this section, each database was
investigated individually to determine individual empirical constants for the “Linear Shape Effect” formula.
The formulae developed will be of the form presented in Equation 35. The methodology used to develop the
empirical strength formulae is as follows:
• Specify the requirements that the empirical formula should meet.

• Show that the variation in volume between the largest and smallest pillars in the database is small
enough that it will not have to be dealt with in the shape term in Equation 36.
• For each of the detailed databases, derive the empirical constants “A” and “B” of the “Linear
Shape Effect” formula (Equation 11). Based on this information, a common strength size factor,
“K”, for full size mine pillars is determined.
• Using the empirical constants derived and the valid width I height ratio ranges for each of the
databases, show that pillar strength is driven by a non-linear function of the pillar width / height
ratio.
• Refine the power function using the average pillar confinement to derive a descending power or
“Log-Power Shape Effect” formula.
• Introduce a new pillar term, “kappa”, which is dependent on pillar confinement and is
fundamental to the development of a new pillar strength hypothesis, “The Confinement Formula”.
This methodological approach to the derivation of empirical constants for the “Shape Effect” formula
will be investigated in detail in the next section.
5.2.2 Requirements for a Strength Formula

In defining a strength formula that is to be used by practicing mine engineers and designers, the
following criteria should be met:
• Input parameters should be readily available and not require an extraneous amount of effort to
determine.
• The method should be readily calibrated to a particular mme site.
• The strength formula should be dimensionally balanced.
102
The strength formulae developed here will be in the general form of Equation 35.
=SizexShape
5
P (35)
where:
Size — Strength term that incorporates the size effect and strength of intact pillar
material (MPa)
Shape Geometric term that incorporates the shape effect of the pillar
As discussed in Chapter 2, pillar strength formulae have been derived empirically in the past using the
“Linear Shape Effect”, “Power Shape Effect” and “Size Effect” formulae. In review, the general form of these
formulae is presented in Equation 36.
P=K.(A÷B) (36)
where:
P — Pillar strength (MPa)
K — Strength pillar material (MPa)
A, B, a, b — Empirically derived constants
In most mining operations there is neither the manpower nor the financial resources available to
examine the strength characteristics of mine pillars in detail. The data available generally consists of:
• geometric characteristics of pillars

• predicted pillar stresses
• estimates of pillar stability
• the intact strength of the rock mass material
Each of these variables as they relate to pillar strength is examined in the following section.
5.2.3 Pillar Strength Variables

The input variables that have been deemed to control pillar strength are presented in the following
sections. It is concluded that the critical variables required to make an assessment of pillar strength, as
discussed in previous sections, include the following:
103
• pillar geometry / pillar confinement
• intact rock strength
• pillar volume
• applied pillar stress
• pillar stability classification
These variables are summarized in the following sections. A relationship between pillar geometry and
pillar confinement is developed based upon two-dimensional boundary element modelling.
5.2.3.1 Pillar Geometry

Pillar geometry is collected at mining operations on a regular basis in order to quantify the amount of
material removed through the course of mining operations. This data is generally collected by mine surveyors
and engineers and recorded on mine plans and sections. A typical three-dimensional pillar is shown in Figure
50. The pillar has a width, length, and height. These dimensions, for the sake of pillar strength estimation, are
made in the axes of the principal stresses acting on the pillars. Some authors (Wagner (1980), Sheorey &
Singh (1974), Stacey & Page(1986)) have suggested that the width can be replaced by an effective width term
that encompasses both the length and the width. The author could find no reason to use an “effective” pillar
width, based on the data presented in Chapter 4, and has concluded that the width used should be the minimum
pillar width through the pillar centre as illustrated in Figure 50.
5.2.3.2 Pillar Confinement

Existing empirical strength formula relate the geometric characteristics, width and height, of a pillar
to the pillar strength. Hoek & Brown (1980) proposed that pillar width / height ratios could be replaced with
an equivalent term equal to the average (73/01 across the mid-height centerline of the pillar. This term will be
called the average pillar confinement, Cp. In this section a relationship between average pillar confinement
and pillar width / height ratio is derived based upon the results of two-dimensional numerical modelling. This
term will be used in the “Log-Power Shape Effect Formula” and the new strength formula, “The Confinement
Formula”.
In order to investigate how average pillar confinement is related to pillar geometry, a detailed
parametric numerical modelling session was undertaken. Two-dimensional boundary element modelling was
performed, using Examine2D, to model pillars of varying width / height ratios. Detailed modelling was
performed with an extraction ratio of 99.5%. In addition, less comprehensive modelling sessions were
performed with decreasing extraction ratios, down to 66.7%. The results of these modelling sessions are
discussed in the following section and are presented in Appendix A.
104
5.2.3.2.1 Detailed Modelling
A single pillar was modelled with width I height ratios varying from 0.25 to 10. Homogeneous
conditions in a constant stress field were simulated. Examination of the zones of failure using both Mohr
Coulomb and Hoek & Brown (1980) failure criteria revealed that predicted failure always occurred initially at
the mid-height of the pillar as illustrated in Figure 88 to Figure 93. In order to assess modelled pillar failure,
“m” & “s” were fixed at 10 and 0.1 respectively. These are representative values for a good quality rock mass.
The model unconfined compressive strength was then varied in each model until a zone with a factor of safety
of less than one was generated at any location across the pillar. In all cases the failure zone first materialized at
the mid height of the pillar, which corresponds to the point in the pillar that has the lowest average ratio of 03
to 01. Average a and 03 values were tabulated and are presented in Table 27 along with the average pillar
confinement, Cpa,,, calculated for each width / height ratio in the modelling session.
Figure 59 shows the relationship between pillar width / height ratio and average calculated pillar
confinement for an extraction ratio of 99.5%. It can be seen from Figure 59 is that the average confinement is
extremely low for pillar width I height ratios of 0 to 0.6, increases rapidly for width / height ratios from 0.6 to
2.5, and becomes a constant slope above width / height ratios of 4.0. Equation 37 was determined through trial
and error to relate average pillar confinement determined from modelling and pillar width / height ratio for
width / height ratios less than 4.5 and for a modelled extraction ratio of 99.5%.
Cpav = 0.34. [log(- + 0.75)] (w/h)
where:
Cpa,, Average pillar confinement
5.2.3.2.2 Additional Modelling

Additional modelling was performed to determine the sensitivity of the average pillar confinement,
Cpa,,, to various input parameters. The effects of altering the in-situ stress ratio and the modelled extraction
ratio were investigated.
5.2.3.2.2.1 Variable In-situ Stress Ratio

The in-situ stress conditions were modified for a limited number of modelled width / height ratios to
determine what the influence of the in-situ stress ratio (01/03) would have on the modelled pillar confinement.
These points are plotted on Figure 59 and the values are reported in Table 27. Figure 59 shows
105
Table 27: Results of two-dimensional parametric modelling sessions to investigate average pillar
confinement
Pillar In-Situ Stress In-Situ Stress In-Situ Stress

W/H 03=01 0301/2 03012
Ratio 03 Oj Cpav 03 Cp 03 Ui Cpav
a
(1
025 03 9000 000 SlIt SliW SlIl St. IItW

0.50 0.3 1078.9 0.00 0.6 1072.3 0.00 0.3 1074.9 0.00
0.60 0.5 1108.7 0.00 0.7 1111.2 . i”’ 4 (‘“0
0.65 3.7 1117.9 0.00
0.70 8.7 1130.9 0.01
0.75 16.9 1136.6 0.01
1.0 58.0 1173.0 0.05 58.7 1158.6 0.05 58.3 1168.3 0.05
1.25 110.9 1195.4 0.09 JJJ
1.5 159.8 1223.0 0.13 156.1 1227.6 0.13 155.3 1214.6 0.13
1.75 202.2 1232.2 0.16 ,
2.0 239.8 1254.9 0.19 236.5 1257.9 0.19 247.7 1254.6 0.20
2.5 302.4 1291.6 0.23
3.0 354.5 1343.8 0.26 351.5 1342.8 0.26 365.3 1342.1 0.27
3.5 394.5 1398.5 0.28
4.0 435.6 1406.7 0.31
5.0 478.6 1513.0 0.32
6.0 521.6 1570.0 0.33
7.0 565.6 1647.0 0.34
8.0 61.1 1674.0 0.37
9.0 652.0 1702.0 0.38
10.0 651.3 1611.1 0.40
that the in-situ stress ratio appears to have little effect on the modelled pillar confinement. This session was
performed using a modelled extraction ratio of 99.5%.
52.3.2.22 Variable Extraction Ratio

The detailed modelling session was originally performed using an extraction of 99.5%. This value is
not representative of most mining situations so additional modelling sessions were performed to determine if
the average pillar confinement is dependent on the extraction ratio. Table 28 lists the results from modelling
different extraction ratios for a limited number of pillar width / height ratios. The results show that a lower
extraction ratio results in a higher confinement value for a given width I height ratio. The results for two of the
sessions are presented in Figure 60 with the original 99.5% line along with the proposed confinement lines for
modelled extraction ratios of 98.3% and 88.3%. Based upon the relationship determined between pillar width I
height ratio and Cpa. for 99.5% extraction, it was determined that for various extraction ratios can be
approximated by Equation 38. This relationship is valid for width / height ratios between 0 and 3.0. The value
of the “coefj” in Equation 38 as determined for each of the modelling sessions is presented in Figure 61.
106
Cpav = coeff . [log(- + 0.75)](W/h) (38)
where:
Cp Average pillar confinement
coeff = Coefficient of pillar confinement
w Pillar width (m)
5.2.3.2.3 Discussion Pillar Confinement

-
The mining scenarios used in hard rock mining generally will have overall extraction ratios between
65% and 90%. Reviewing Figure 61, we can see that the confinement “coeff’ does not begin to decrease
dramatically until the extraction ratio is above 95%. Based upon this, an “average” value for the confinement
“coeff’ in the strength formula will be used, as opposed to using a relationship for the confinement “coeff’
based upon extraction ratio. The confinement “coeff’ varies between 0.445 and 0.465 for extraction ratios
between 90% and 65%. This range represents a maximum potential error of 5% in the value of the confinement
“coeff’ for the expected extraction ratios in most pillar mining situations. Therefore an average confinement
“coeff’ of 0.46, corresponding to an extraction ratio of 72%, as selected from Figure 61 will be used. It is the
author’s opinion that the magnitude of error associated with the confinement “coeff’ is acceptable given the
variability of the other factors that contribute to pillar strength. The formula for average pillar confmement for
extraction ratios between 65% and 95% can then be approximated by Equation 39.
Cpav = 0.46. [log(. + 0.75)]) (39)
where:
Cp — Average pillar confinement
w - Pillar width (m)
It is important to understand why it is suggested that the average pillar confinement, Cp, be used in
place of the pillar width / height ratio in strength formulae. Pillar width / height ratio has been used as primary
input variable in the past by a number of researchers. This is primarily applicable to pillars that are of regular
shape and as such, the pillar width / height ratio can be determined readily. However, in situations where pillar
shapes are irregular in plan, the assessment of pillar width I height ratio becomes more difficult.
107
0.45
Cpav —0.23 + 0.017*(w/h)
0.401-
I - - - - -- - - -
0.35
--
---
0.15------ -
0.10 --
(1.4/(w/h))
Cpav — O.34*(Iog((w/h)+0.75)))
0.05-----a --
I I I I I I I I I I I
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0
Modelled In-situ Stress Conditions
Sig3 — Sigi Sig3 — Sigl/2 Sig3 — Sig1*2)
Figure 59: Relationship determined between average pillar confinement and pillar width I height ratio for a
modelled extraction ratio of 99.5%.
Table 28: Results of two-dimensional parametric modelling sessions investigating the effects of differing
modelled extraction ratios on the average pillar confinement.
Modelled Pillar W/H Ratio Pillar W/H Ratio

Extraction 1:1 2:1
Ratio 03 01 CPav 03 01 CPay
99.5% 58.0 1173.0 0.05 239.8 1254.9 0.19
99.0% 32.0 648.7 0.05 142.8 686.7 0.21
98.4% 22.1 433.0 0.05 99.2 454.9 0.22
95.2% 9.6 183.4 0.05 60.3 267.5 0.23
90.9% 5.9 111.2 0.05 29.3 125.7 0.23
83.3% 3.5 73.9 0.05 18.0 80.2 0.22
66.7% 2.0 47.6 0.4 12.7 51.6 0.25
Modelled Pillar W/H Ratio Pillar W/H Ratio
Extraction 3:1 4:1
Ratio 03 0j 03 Oi CPav
99.5% 354.5 1343.8 0.26 435.6 1406.7 0.31
99.0% 215.7 725.8 0.30 271.0 760.3 0.36
98.4% 135.2 414.1 0.33 181.9 480.4 0.38
95.2% 66.6 198.2 0.34 81.2 201.7 0.40
90.9% 44.8 128.6 0.35 51.5 129.9 0.40
83.3% 27.8 82.5 0.34 34.6 84.3 0.41
66.7% 20.2 53.8 0.38 24.1 53.4 0.45
108
0.40
0.35
co-eff —0.45 —
0.30
co-eff —0.40
0.25 - ----
7 — co-eff -0.34
o —
0.20
c-) /7
/7
,,—
0.15
(1.4/(w/h))
/ / o-_
Cpav <coeff.*(1og((w/h)+O.75))) / 7
/
—
0.10- V
7
0.05-j-
0.00 V
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0

Pillar Width! Height Ratio V
Modelled Extraction Ratio
88.3 % 0 98.3 99.5
Figure 60: Relationship between the average pillar confinement and pillar width I height ratio for differing
modelled extraction ratios.
0.50 -
For an average mining extraction ratio of 72%,

the corresponding Cpav coeff is 0.46.
0.46 -
. 0.42
N
0
Q
a 0.38
>
L)
I ‘
72%
0.34 L
I I I I
0.65 0.70 0.75 0.80 0.85 0.90 0.95 1.00
Extraction Ratio
Figure 61: Plot of the variation in the Cp coefficient for different modelled extraction ratios.
109
Utilizing a new term, Cp or average pillar confinement, allows the assessment of the strength of
pillars that have irregular shapes. The potential exists that pillar confinement can be determined in the future
from numerical modelling and not from the pillar width / height ratio, as has been done here. The pillar width
/ height ratio is used in the strength formulae subsequently developed, however, because the pillars that make
up the database have not been modelled individually to determine the average pillar confinement of each. All
geometric observations were of pillar width and height only.
5.2.3.3 Intact Rock Strength

The intact rock strength is commonly determined from diamond drill core samples. The most
common strength term derived is the unconfined compressive strength. Estimates of the unconfined
compressive strength can be made in a number of manners such as:
• laboratory testing
• point load index
• hammer test
Kostak & Bielenstein (1971) determined that there was considerable scatter in sample strengths for a
given size of sample. Kostak & Bielenstein’s (1971) research for 50 mm samples suggests that for a given rock
type, unconfined compressive strength can vary by ± 10%. This variability must be considered when using the
unconfined compressive strength as an input parameter for estimating pillar strength.
5.2.3.4 Influence OfPillar Volume On Strength

It has been recognized by researchers that as sample size of a given rock type increases, the strength
decreases. This is the result of having an increased number of structural defects present within larger samples
and is discussed in Section 3.2.4. An example of this phenomenon is shown in Figure 29, Figure 30 and Figure
31. We can see that small intact samples have a higher strength than a rock mass of the same material
containing a large number of structural features. Work by Kostak & Bielenstein (1971) showed the influence of
strength for samples ranging from diameters of 45 mm 240 mm as shown in Figure 31. Agapito & Hardy
-
(1982) suggest a correction formula for the adjustment of strength between two different sample sizes as
described by Equation 40.
CL
(40)
2
S Vi
where:
.S
1
S 2 = Strength of samples I and 2 respectively
,V
1
V 2 — Corresponding volume of samples I and 2
CL — Exponent that ranges from 0.06 for hard rock to 0.18 for soft rock
110
Based upon 162 observations
0.06
Pillar UCSI / Pillar UCS2 — (V2 / VI)
0%
0.7-0.9 0.9-1.1 1.1-1.3 1.3- 1.5
Normalised Co-efficient Range
Volume Coefficient Normalised to the Mean Volume Coefficient for the Total Database.
Figure 62: Histogram showing the variation in the influence of the pillar volume on pillar strength for all
data in the combined database.
The combined database was investigated with respect to sample (pillar) volume utilizing Agapito &
Hardy’s (1982) formula and it was determined that 62% of the case histories fell within ±10% of the strength
volume factor for a five metre cubical pillar specimen, a representative pillar size for the pillars in the
combined pillar database. In addition 94% of the case histories fell within ± 30% of the mean strength volume
factor. It is concluded that this variation in the effect of volume on pillar strength is sufficiently small that it
can be disregarded for the case histories in the combined database. Figure 62 is a histogram showing the
distribution of the volume coefficient for the pillar in the combined database.
5.2.3.5 Pillar Stress Determination

For the case histories included in the combined pillar database, average pillar stress has been
determined using a number of different methods. The hierarchy of complexity of pillar stress determination
generally follows, from simplest to most complex, the following:
1. tributary area theory

2. two-dimensional boundary element modelling
3. two-dimensional finite element modelling
4. three-dimensional boundary element modelling
5. three-dimensional finite element modelling
Ill
In the case of the combined database, methods 1, 2, 3, and 4 have been used to calculate average pillar
stresses. It is recognized that errors can be realized in stress determination, however the process of calibrating
a numerical model should reduce much of the uncertainty that accompanies numerical modelling in general. It
is the author’s opinion that, in spite of the different stress determination methods used, the values obtained for
each database are comparable. In general there is no need to use a more complex method than a problem
requires. The effort required to obtain results using a more complex method, that may be of marginally
improved accuracy, may require a significant amount of additional work.
5.2.3.6 Pillar Stability Classf1cation

In all of the cases in the combined database, pillar stability assessments, which range from a simple
assessment of “Stable / Failed” to a more rigorous approach based upon a five or six stage stability
classification method, have been made. Reviewing the combined database, the author concludes that a
minimum of a three stage failure assessment should be used, in the form of:
• stable pillars
• unstable pillars
• failed pillars
The above assessment was made during the process of reviewing each of the summary database’s in
the derivation of the empirical strength constants discussed in the following sections. The correlation of the
three stage pillar stability classification with the classification’s originally used for each of the database’s is
presented in Table 29.
Unstable pillars are classified as showing any visible signs of pillar degradation. The unstable range
may, as with the Westmin database and the Krauland & Soder (1987) database, be subdivided into more
detailed levels of instability, however the basic premise of “failed”, “unstable” and “stable” provides adequate
results for the combined database.
Table 29: Common pillar stability assessment designation for each individual database in the combined
database.
Combined Westmin Hudyma Von Kimmelman et Hedley & Sjoberg (1992) Krauland &
Database Resources (1988) al. (1984) Grant Soder(l987)
(1972)
Failed Class “5” Failed Class “C” Crushed Failed NA
Unstable Class “2”-”4” Sloughing Class “B”, “B/C” Partially Pre-failure, Class “3”
Failed severe spalling
Stable Class “1” Stable Class “A” Stable NA NA
112
5.2.4 Refined Empirical Strength Formulae
The databases from Westmin Resources Ltd.’s H-W Mine, Hudyma (1988), Von Kimmelman et al.
(1984), and Hedley & Grant (1972) have been used to develop a refined empirical strength formula for hard
rock mine pillars based upon back analysis. The databases from Sjoberg (1992), Krauland & Soder (1987), and
Brady (1977) have been used to corroborate the formulae developed. Empirical strength formula have taken
three forms to date as discussed in Chapter 2. The general formulae are the “Linear Shape Effect”, “Power
Shape Effect” and the “Size Effect” formulae. The only published strength formulation for hard rock mine
pillars was a size effect formula presented by Hedley & Grant (1972) based upon the Salamon & Munro (1967)
strength formula for coal pillars in South Africa.
52.4.1 Linear Shape Effect

The Shape Effect Formula can be described by Equation 41 and Equation 42 based upon the work by
researchers discussed in Chapter 2.
Ps = UCS.(A’+B’(-)) (41)
h
or
Ps=(K.UCS).(A+B()) (42)
where:
— Pillar strength (MPa)
w Pillar width (m)
h Pillar height (m)
UCS — Unconfined compressive strength of intact sample of pillar material (MPa)
A’, B’ Empirical constants
K Strength size factor equal to A’ plus B’
A, B Empirical constants where A + B = 1.0
The empirical constants, “A”, “B”, and “K”, for the linear shape effect formula were determined for
each of the individual databases and the results are presented in Table 30. These variables were determined for
“bestfit” steep and flat lines that could be used to sub-divide the pillar stability classification groups for each of
the databases individually. The criteria for the placement of these “best fit” lines was that the predictability
success for the full range between the flat and steep lines remained constant and was the highest predictability
possible. This is discussed in detail in Section 5.3. The coefficients generated for the Westmin database are
slightly different than those reported in Chapter 4 because the techniques used to place the stability lines was
113
Table 30: Linear shape effect constants and strength size factor determined for each of the individual
databases in the combined database.
Case A B A B K Value Valid W/ll

(steep) (steep) (flat) (flat) (range) (range)
Westmin 0.66 0.34 0.77 0.23 0.45-0.49 1.3-1.9
Hudyma (1988) 0.0 1.0 0.25 0.75 0.45 0.4-1.0
Von Kimmelmanetal. 0.35 0.65 0.65 0.35 0.48-0.51 1.3-1.9
(1984)
Hedley & Grant (1972) 0.25 0.75 0.75 0.25 0.3-0.5 0.9-1.2
slightly different and was based upon three generalized pillar stability classifications instead of five detailed
stability classifications.
Figure 63 Figure 66 are stability plots for each of the individual databases showing the respective
-
pillar case histories, the valid range of slopes for the linear shape effect, and the valid ranges, as shown by the
solid segments of the lines, of width / height ratios based upon the database distribution. A “K” factor of 0.44
has been used for these plots. In order to use the “Linear Shape Effect” formula it was necessary to determine
a common strength size effect coefficient, “K”, that could be used for each of the databases. The value of “K”
ranges from 0.3 to 0.51 and the values for each of the databases are presented in Table 30. It can be noted that
the values of “K” derived for each of the individual databases have small variability with the exception Hedley
& Grant (1972). This is because the Hedley & Grant (1972) data was supplied with a range of potential
unconfined compressive strength values that could be used (210 275 MPa). In comparison to the other
-
databases, it is determined that when using the average “K” value of 0.44, the corresponding unconfmed
compressive strength of the Hedley & Grant (1972) database is 210 MPa.
A.n average value of 0.44 was chosen for the strength size coefficient, “K”, to be used for all of the
database’s. This value was determined by taking the average of the “K” values for the database’s as presented
in Table 30. This value will be used as the common strength size factor for the subsequent pillar strength
formulations. This value compares favourably with methods of determining a strength size factor employed by
other researchers. The work of Kostak & Bielenstein (1971) suggests that “K” for a full size pillar would be
0.5, based upon Figure 31. Equation 40, presented by Agapito & Hardy (1982), results in “K” 0.4 for a
cubical pillar that is 5 metres in dimension on each side, a representative size for the pillars in the combined
database, using “a.” 0.06, as suggested for hard rock.
The valid range of width / height ratios for each of the databases are also presented in Table 30. The
valid range is defmed as: the range of width / height ratios for which there is sufficient data to subdivide the
different pillar stability classifications with a high degree of confidence. Each database is only valid over a
limited range of width I height ratios. Figure 67 is plot of the “best fit” steep and flat “Linear Shape Effect”
114
0.7
— F.S. — 1.0
—
— —
0.6
C’,
0.5
z
0.4
0.3
Ps — 0.44*UCS*(A + B*(w/h))
0.1 -
31 observations
0.0 — I I I I I
0.0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.0 2.4 2.8 3.2
[ Failed • Unstable A Stable — Valid W/H RangeJ
Figure 63: Stability graph for the Westmin database showing the range of slopes for the stability lines and the
valid range for pillar width / height ratios.
0.7
F.S. 1.0 F.S. 1.4
/ -
— —
/ / /
0.6 /
/ /
7/ V
/
Ct, /,
0.5 --A-----V
/
z /_-_
. / A
A
/___
,;—
-
A
0.3
Ps0.44*UCS*(A+B*(w/h))
0.2
/
/ A
/
/ // A
0.1
47 observations
0.0 I I I I I
0.0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.0 2.4 2.8 3.2
[ Failed • Unstable A Stable — Valid W/H Range)
Figure 64: Stability graph for the Hudyma (1988) database showing the range of slopes for the stability lines
and the valid range for pillar width / height ratios.
115
0.7
F.S. = 1.0 —
—
0.6
0.5
z
—
0.4
>-_-/_
_z
-
— • A A
—
—
A
0.3 . —2--
,, — — A
S..
7— — —
>
0.2 - - —
7> - - -
—
Ps — 0.44*IJCS*(A + B*(wlh))
0.1
47.
0.0
0.0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.0 2.4 2.8 3.2
Failed • Unstable A Stable — Valid W/H Ranged
Figure 65: Stability graph for the Von Kimmelman et al. (1984) database showing the range of slopes for the
stability lines and the valid range for pillar width / height ratios.
0.7
/ F.S. — 1.0 -
/
—
0.6 -
—
/
/ .-.--
- F.S. —1.4
C’, / —
0.5 ------—
— — — —
7 — —
- —-
1 JIll 11111
.. 0.3
0.2
-14---
/ -._ A Ps 0.44*UCS*(A + B*(wfh))
0.1
28 observations
I I I I I
0.0 I I I I I
I
0.0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.0 2.4 2.8 3.2

Pillar Width! Height Ratio
( Failed • Unstable A Stable — Valid W/H Ranged
Figure 66: Stability graph for the Hedley & Grant (1972) database showing the range of slopes for the
stability lines and the valid range for pillar width / height ratios.
116
lines, for the valid width /height ratios, for each of the databases. It can be observed from Figure 67 that the
slopes of the “Linear Shape Effect” lines are steeper at lower width I height ratios and flatter at higher width I
height ratios. These curves will be shown to follow a non-linear relationship with pillar width / height ratio in
the next section.
5.2.4.2 Refined Power Shape Effect

All comprehensive and supporting data has been used to develop a power coefficient for the “Power
Shape Effect” formula. It can be seen from Figure 67 that the pillar strength is a non-linear function of pillar
width / height ratio and it was determined that the strength function resembles a power function as described by
the following formula:
• (W)CL
Ps = (0.44. UCS) (43)
h
where
— Pillar strength (MPa)
UCS Unconfined compressive strength of intact sample of pillar material (MPa)
a. — Empirical power coefficient
Analysis of the data from the combined database for varying values of “a.” resulted in a value of “a” of
0.45 for optimum strength prediction results. This “Refined Power Shape Effect” curve is presented in Figure
68 along with all of the combined database case histories. In the derivation of the power coefficient, “a.” of
0.45, it was observed that higher values of “a.” gave better strength estimation results at lower width / height
ratios and that an “a.” value of 0.4 gave better results at width I height ratios of 2.5 and greater. This lead to
the development of the “Log-Power Shape Effect Formula”, as presented in the next section.
52.4.3 Log-Power Shape Effect

A method of making “a.” a function of width / height was investigated. A means of reducing “a” with
increasing width I height ratios was developed through a trial and error approach utilizing the value of Cp. In
the course of the investigation of the optimum power coefficient in the previous section, “bestfit” power
coefficients for small ranges of width I height ratio were tabulated. These desired “a.” values, for a given width
I height ratio, are presented in Figure 69. It was determined that the optimum empirical success rate in
predicting pillar strength was driven by an “a.” term defined by Equation 44.
117
0.7
0.6 -
C-,
0.5
z
P.. 0.3
5)
<0.2
0.1
0.0
0.0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.0 2.4 2.8 3.2
Confinement Formula Log Power Shape Effect
Strength Formulae —-— -
Refined Power Shape Effect — Valid Linear Shape Effect Ranges
Figure 67: Stability graph showing the stability lines over the valid width I height ratio ranges for each of the
individual databases plotted alongside the strength formulae subsequently developed.
0.7 —
F.S. — 1.0
A
0.6
0
0.5
z 0
C’,
A
0I C
A A
o A
A A
A
0.. 0.3
0) A
A A
A
AA S
•0
0.2
A
A A 0.45
A
A Ps — 0.44*UCS*(wlh)
0.1
178 observations
0.0
0.0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.0 2.4 2.8 3.2
Pillar Width I Height Ratio
C Failed • Unstable A Stable

D
Figure 68: Stability graph for the “Refined Power Shape Effect” formula with a power coefficient, “a”, of
0.45, plotted along with all of the case histories in the combined database.
118
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.t
Alpha— 1.31 -Cpav
0.6
9. 0.5
Cpav coeff - 0.46

0.0
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35
Cpav
[ :
Observed Values
Figure 69: Plot of the preferred value of the refined power coefficient, “a”, for differing values of pillar width
I height ratio plotted along with the relationship represented by Equation 44.
0.1
a =l.31—Cpav (44)
where:
a = Log-power coefficient
Cpa,, Average pillar confinement
Although derived through a trial and error approach, this formula for the power coefficient fits the
desired “a” data very well. Figure. 70 is a plot of the “Log-Power Shape Effect Formula” with all of the case
histories in the database.
5.2.4.4 Discussion Refined Empirical Strength Formulae

-
Refined empirical strength formulae have been derived for hard rock mine pillars. Individual “Linear
Shape Effect” constants have been derived for each of the comprehensive databases and it was determined that
the unconfined compressive strength of a full scale mine pillar can be approximated by a strength size factor,
“K”, of 0.44 of the small scale unconfined compressive strength (50 mm sample). This was developed from
the investigation of the pillar case histories that make up the combined database. When assimilating the linear
strength constants, it became evident that pillar strength could not be represented by a linear relationship over
119
0.7
F.S. — 1.0
0.6 -
D •
-
•
0.5 - -
-
• • F.S. = 1.4
C’,
.
•
0.4
a’ A
A
a’
A
-- - -
• A A
5) • A
A
Ce
1-.
• A
•
5)
>
A
A
0.1 •- - -
(I.31-Cpav
0.I Cpav coeff — 0.46
Ps — 0.44*UCS*(w/h) l78observations
0.0
0.0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.0 2.4 2.8 3.2
Failed • Unstable a’ Stable
Figure 70: Stability graph for the “Log Power Shape Effect” formula with a power coefficient represented by
Equation 45, plotted along with all of the case histories in the combined database.
a wide range of pillar width / height ratios. A refined empirical power coefficient, “Ct”, of 0.45 for the “Power
Shape Effect” formula has been determined, however it was clear that the “Power Shape Effect” did not
represent the optimum empirical strength formula. A refined empirical strength formula, “The Log-Power
Shape Effect Formula” has been developed where the power coefficient is shown to be a function of the average
pillar confinement. The prediction success of these refined empirical formulae, as related to the combined
database, is discussed in Section 5.3.
5.2.5 A New Strength Hypothesis The Confinement Formula -
A fundamentally derived empirically verified strength estimation formula, “The Confinement

-
Formula”, for hard rock mine pillars is presented in this section. Wilson (1972) and Sheorey et al. (1987) have
both suggested that the strength of mine pillars is controlled by confinement, which is a function of pillar width
/ height ratio. While pillar strength is commonly presented using pillar width / height ratios, it is actually
pillar confinement that controls the strength of mine pillars.
A new method of estimating the strength of hard rock mine pillars that uses pillar confinement as a
fundamental input variable in place of pillar width / height ratio is proposed. This approach is verified using
the case histories that have been tabulated and presented in Section 5.1. It will be shown that the proposed
strength formula predicts pillar stability for the case histories in the database as well as the best empirical
120
strength formula, yet it follows a form of the fundamental theory of the shear strength of rock. It is proposed
that the pillar strength is comprised of an unconfined strength and a confined strength. At very low width /
height ratios the strength is controlled by the unconfined term, and at high width I height ratios the strength is
controlled jointly by the confined strength and the unconfined strength.
5.2.5.1 Mohr-Coulomb-Navier’s Theory

Lundborg (1968) presented a paper on the strength of rock and investigated the various failure criteria
that have been applied to rock. One of the topics covered was Mohr-Coulomb-Navier’s theory (1773), where
the strength of a plane through a sample subjected to a triaxial stress condition can be determined using Mohr’s
circle diagrams. A typical Mohr’s circle diagram is shown in Figure 71. Coulomb (1773) presented the
following equation to describe the shear strength of a material which represents the rupture envelope of a
material.
tn=t
+
0 J.Lp (45)
where:
— Shear strength (MPa)
— Cohesive shear strength (MPa)
— Coefficient of slope
Po — Normal stress on the plane being considered (MPa)
The second term resembles a frictional effect, yet when dealing with rock there is no discrete surface
being considered. Lundberg (1968) states that this description of strength shows satisfactory agreement for
rock at low pressure and is often quoted when describing the variation of rock strength at a normal pressure.
5.2.5.2 Frictional Effect of Mine Pillars

In Section 5.2.3.2, it was shown that the width / height ratio of a pillar can be approximated by an
average pillar confinement term, C that is the average a

, 3 divided by the average a. Mohr’s circle diagrams
can be constructed for any average pillar confinement and a friction term, kt2ppa (K), can be determined.
Figure 71 is a Mohr’s circle construction showing how average pillar confinement, Cpa,,, is related to the angle
beta. The friction term, kappa (ic), can be defined from basic trigonometry by Equation 46.
1(1 CPaV)]
K = tan[cos (46)
—
1+ Cpav
121
(sg1 —sig3)
2 (sigl—sig3) — (1—Cpov)
cos(beta)
(siq1—sg3) (sigl+sig3) (1+Cpav)
÷ sig3
—
2
Cpcv = sig3/ig1
Cl)
C/)
ci)
(1)
0
1)
(I)
Sigma
Figure 71: Construction of a Mohr’s failure envelope with reference to average pillar confinement, Cp.
where:
IC — kappa, mine pillar friction term
Cpa, — Average pillar confinement
As pillar confinement increases, the slope of the strength envelope constructed using Mohr’s circles
decreases. However, as the pillar width I height ratio increases, the strength of a mine pillar will also increase.
It was subsequently determined that the friction term kappa, (K), could be used in “The Confinement Formula”
to estimate pillar strength. Figure 72 is a construction of a series of Mohr’s strength envelopes for various
values of Cp showing how, for increasing values of Cp, the slope of the strength envelope changes. Figure
73 shows the relationship between kappa and Cp for the full range of Cpa,, values. An interesting point of
note is that Wilson (1972) also derived a term that is similar to kappa. His term, called the triaxial stress
coefficient (Equation 22), was dependent on the friction angle of pillar material only and was used in his
theoretical strength formula (Section 2.2.2.1).
122
Sigma Sigma i
0
Cpav = 0.1 Cpav = 0.2
° Sigma
Cpav = 0.3
Figure 72: Construction of Mohr’s failure envelopes for differing values of average pillar confinement, Cp.
2.5
2.0--
1.5
cos(beia) — (1-Cpav) / (1+Cpav)
0.5
0.0 I I I I I
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40
Cpav
Figure 73: Mohr-Coulomb pillar strength envelope for any value of average pillar confinement, Cpa.,.
123
5.2.5.3 The Confinement Formula
A new strength formula, “The Confinement Formula”, is proposed for hard rock mine pillars in the
form of Equation 47.
2
=
3
P
1 (K.UCS).(Ct+C
C) (47)
where:
P Pillar strength (MPa)
K Pillar strength size factor — 0.44 (as previously determined)
UCS Unconfined compressive strength pillar material, 50 mm sample (MPa)
, C
1
C 2 — Empirical rock mass constants
IC = Pillar confinement / friction term (kappa)
The basic form of this equation is based upon a modifications to Equation 45 after investigating how
the combined database performed for various equation configurations. The empirical constants ”
1
“C and “C
”
2
determined for the pillars in the combined database are 0.68 and 0.52 respectively. These values were
determined by varying the coefficients in order to maximize the predictiQn success rate for the combined
database. The strength equation for the combined database can now be represented as Equation 48.
= (0.44. UCS).(0.68 + 0.52K) (48)
where:
Pillar strength (MPa)
UCS — Unconfined compressive strength pillar material, 50 mm sample (MPa)
IC Pillar confinement / friction term (kappa)
This formula is represented graphically in Figure 74 along with the all the case histories in the
database. This formula is also presented with the width / height ratio replaced by Cp on the horizontal axis of
the graph in Figure 75. The new formula is plotted against the “Power Shape Effect” and “Log-Power Shape
Effect” formulae for a factor of safety of 1.0 in Figure 76. We can see that for width / height ratios greater than
0.5, the proposed strength formula is essentially the same as both of the refined empirical formulae. Figure 77
is a confinement plot of a comparison of the various strength formula.
It is concluded that this form of equation could be used to predict pillar strength of rock types other
than “hard” rock. The empirical coefficients “C

” and 2
1 “C
” , as derived, are for hard rock mine pillars only.
The general shape of the confinement curve suggests that different coefficients could be derived for different
rock types, such as coal, to aid in pillar strength estimation.
124
0.7 -
F.S. — 1.0
0.6
; :
-
•
Clj
0.5 - -
F.S. — 1.4
z
- -
-
• A
.; A
A
A
A
0.3
I
-
• A A
A A
•
.< 0.2 A
A A
A A
0.1
Cpav coeff 0.46
-
Ps — 0.44*UCS*(0.68 + 0.52k) 178 observations

0.0- i I I I I I I
0.0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.0 2.4 2.8 3.2

Failed • Unstable A Stablej
Figure 74: Stability graph for “The Confinement Formula” as described by Equation 48, plotted along with
all of the case histories in the combined database.
0.7
FSi.0
•
0.6
0.1
Cpvcofl-0.6
Ps 0.44*UCS*(0.68 + 0.52k) 178 observations
—
0.0 I I I I I I
0.00 0.04 0.08 0.12 0.16 0.20 0.24 0.28 0.32
Cpav
Failed • Unstable A
StabZ
Figure 75: Confinement graph for “The Confinement Formula” as described by Equation 48 with pillar
width / height ratio replaced by average pillar confinement on the x-axis and plotted along with
all of the case histories in the combined database.
125
0.7
0.6
o 0.5
‘1,
0.4
C 0.3
U
I..
a)
0.2
0.1
0.0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.0 2.4 2.8 3.2

Strength Fonnulae
Confinement Formula —°--- Log Power Shape Effect

- —--- Refined Power Shape Effect]
Figure 76: Stability graph comparing the newly developed pillar strength formulae.
0.7
C’,
0.5
‘a
0.4
Q.. 0.3
4)
<0.2
0.1
0.0
0.00 0.04 0.08 0.12 0.16 0.20 0.24 0.28 0.32
Cpav
Strength Formulae
[—a— Confinement Formula —°-- Log - Power Shape Effect —a—- Refined Power Shape
Figure 77: Confinement graph comparing the newly developed pillar strength formulae.
126
5.3 SUCCESS OF THE EMPIRICAL AND PROPOSED FORMULAE
In assessing the validity of “The Confinement Formula”, a statistical analysis has been performed to
measure the success of each of the potential strength formulas. The individual “Linear Shape Effect
Formulas”, Figure 63 - Figure 66, for each of the databases is used as the baseline for comparison with each of
the strength formulae. This baseline data represents the optimum results we could expect to achieve when
predicting pillar strength for the case histories in the combined database.
5.3.1 Success Matrix Methodology

A success matrix method was developed whereby the number of each pillar stability classification, and
the stability classification that they fell under on the graph, were tabulated. The success matrix methodology to
assess the prediction success of each of the respective strength methods is presented in Table 31 and Table 32.
The optimum pillar stability classification method will be one where all of the pillar stability
classifications fall in their predicted (or calculated) categories, represented by the central diagonal of Table 31.
The next best result we could hope for is that a pillar falls in a higher stability classification than where it
should be: i.e. classified stable pillar falling in predicted unstable or failed range. The impact would be a
conservative design and at worst would result in loss of ore but not the potential catastrophic results of pillar
failure. The worst scenario would be one in which a classified pillar falls in a lower stability classification than
predicted: i.e. a classified failed pillar being predicted stable or unstable. In this case, failure would not be
expected and could have severe consequences both from a safety and stability standpoint. In determining where
each of the pillars fell on the stability graph, a margin of 5% was used to define the boundaries between each of
the stability classification regions. Pillars that fell in the 5% boundary region were deemed to be in either of
the adjacent regions.
Table 31: Pillar strength prediction success matrix methodology.

Predicted -> Predicted Predicted Predicted
Actual Failed Unstable Stable
Classified Failed correct one class two classes
unconserv alive unconservative
Classified Unstable one class correct one class
conservative unconservative
Classified Stable two classes one class
conservative conservative
Table 32: Summary of success matrix prediction methodology.
Statistic Classification +2 Classes +1 Classes Perfect -l Classes -2 Classes

Sum of Each group £ two classes Z one class £ Correct E one class Z two classes
from Table 31 conservative conservative unconservative unconservative
127
The prediction statistics are interpreted from the figures as follows. The sum of the columns for each
method totals 100%. A perfect prediction formula would have a column height of 100% in the perfect column
and 0% in the other 4 columns. The assessment of the “best” formula, from a prediction standpoint when
comparing different formula, will be the formula that has the highest prediction percentage in the perfect
column. In addition to it being desirable to have a large percentage of pillars in the perfect column, it is more
desirable to have the additional pillars in the “+“ classes on the left side of the perfect column rather than the
“-“ classes on the right side of the perfect column. These “+“ columns represent pillars that have been
predicted conservatively, i.e. pillar predicted failed but classified as either unstable or stable.
5.3.2 Success of Confinement and Refined Empirical Formulae

The results of the predictability analysis of the combined database are presented in Figure 78 and show
that “The Confinement Formula” marginally outperforms both of the two refined empirical formulae and
performs equally as well as the “best” “Linear Shape Effect Formula” for each of the individual databases,
when derived in isolation. This supports the concept that shear strength theory is applicable to the strength
determination of mine pillars.
1UJ70

90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
30%------
20%
10%
I I I
+2 Classes +1 Class Perfect -1 Class -2 Classes
Predicted Pillar Classification
Refined Power Formula Log-Power Formula Confinement Formula

[] Best Individual Suc)
Figure 78: Pillar strength prediction success statistics for the newly developed formulae for all data in the
combined database.
128
5.3.3 Success of Confinement Formula against Past Formulae
In order to assess the effectiveness of the new strength formulae, the prediction success of “The
Confinement Formula” is compared to the more prevalent strength formulae used in the past, and to the Hock
& Brown (1980) pillar curves. The pillar database is presented along with curves representing the work of
Hock & Brown (1980), Salamon & Munro (1967), Hedley & Grant (1972), Obert & Duvall (1967), and
Bieniawski (1975) in Figure 79 to Figure 86. These stability plots were analyzed according to the success
methodology described previously. The success plots for these curves are plotted in comparison to the success
plot for “The Confinement Formula” in Figure 80 to Figure 87. We can see that in each case “The
Confinement Formula” predicts the stability of the pillars in the database with greater success than the
preceding formula.
53.3.1 Hoek & Brown (1980) Pillar Curves

Figure 79 is the combined database plotted with the Hock & Brown (1980) pillar curves plotted for
rock mass qualities of good to very-good. It is clear from this figure that the Hock & Brown (1980) pillar
curves are overly optimistic for pillars that have width / height ratios greater than 0.5 and a rock mass that is
located between good and very-good quality. It is also clear that the use of Hock & Brown curves are extremely
susceptible to the assessment of rock mass quality, evident by the wide variation of the strength for good and
very-good rock masses. Figure 80 shows the success statistics for the Hock & Brown (1980) pillar curves
plotted against “The Confinement Formula”. This figure shows how the variability in the prediction success of
the Hock & Brown (1980) curves is large when compared to “The Confinement Formula”.
53.3.2 Other Methods with Original Strength Size Coefficient

Figure 81, Figure 82 and Figure 83 are plots of the combined database for the strength methods
proposed by Salamon & Munro (1967), Hedley & Grant (1972) and Bieniawski (1975) respectively utilizing a
strength size coefficient, “K”, proposed by various researchers of 0.7. Figure 84 is the prediction success plot
for these methods plotted against “The Confinement Formula”. This figure show that of these methods,
Salamon & Munro’s (1967) method provides the highest prediction success. It can be noted that Bieniawski’s
(1975) method provides extremely optimistic estimates of pillar strength.
53.3.3 Revised Methods with New Strength Size Coefficient

The prediction success has been determined for a number of methods using the newly developed
strength size factor, “K”, of 0.44. Figure 85 and Figure 86 are plots of the original “Power Shape Effect
Formula” and the original “Linear Shape Effect Formula”, utilizing the empirical constants determined by
Bieniawski (1975) and Obert & Duvall (1967), respectively. Figure 87 is a plot of the success of these methods
plotted against “The Confinement Formula”. It can be seen that these methods all perform reasonably well.
This can be attributed to the fact that the strength size coefficient, “K”, previously determined has been used.
129
The “Power Shape Effect Formula” performs the best of these methods which is understandable as the
optimum power coefficient previously determined, of 0.45, is comparable to a square root which has a power
coefficient of 0.5.
5.4 CHAPTER SUMMARY

Refined empirical coefficients have been derived for the “Power Shape Effect Formula” for mine
pillars, using the combined database of information collected at Westmin Resources Ltd. and other published
hard rock pillar data. Two new empirial strength formulae, “The Log-Power Shape Effect” and “The
Confinement Formula”, have been developed. “The Confinement Formula” formula follows the shear strength
approach of Coulomb (1773) and is determined to be as successful as even the most refined empirical formulae
for predicting the strength of the pillars that make up the combined database. Pillar width / height ratio is
replaced with the average pillar confinement in “The Confinement Formula” in order to estimate pillar
strength.
It is concluded that pillar instability begins to exhibit visible characteristics at a factor of safety of 1.4,
assuming that pillar failure occurs at a factor of safety of 1.0. Pillar stability classification has been used to
successfully assess the strength of pillars and it was determined that, using “The Confinement Formula”, no
observed stable pillars fell in the failed region on the graph. However observed failed pillars did fall in the
stable region of the graph. “The Confinement Formula” predicts the stability of the pillars in the database as
well as the refined empirical formulae. In addition it was determined that these new formulae perform
substantially better than the methods that have preceded them.
130
F.S. — 1.4 F.S. — 1.0 F.S. — 1.4
0.7
- FS. - i.o/ — - - FS. -1.0
0.6
/ — A FS. - 1.4
. — - -
-:
•
-- A
A
/ - — • A- A A
•
V /‘ A —
A
A A
//. A • A A
V.Good / •
/
/ /A
//
-
RMR A A
.‘ -
AA A
0.2---/
-
+—L
- A A
1
V.Good-Good A
A A
A A
0.1+
178 observations
Good RMR
0.0 I I I I I I
0.0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.0 2.4 2.8 3.2
Failed • Unstable A Stable

Good RMR Very Good Good RMR Good RMR
—_Very
— - - — -
Figure 79: Stability graph with the Hoek & Brown (1980) pillar curves for good to very-good rock masses
plotted over all of the data in the combined database.
I
+2 Gasses ÷1 Class Perfect -1 Class -2 Classes
Good RMR Good Very Good RMR

- Very Good RMR Confinement Formula
J
Figure 80: Pillar strength prediction success statistics for “The Confinement Formula” and the Hoek &
Brown (1980) pillar curves for differing rock mass quality.
131
160
140
120
F.S. — 1.4
100 •• --
— A
. • --
80
• A A
• A
0.
-- -
A A
A - -
40 -A
A Ps0.7*UCS*(w /h )
20
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Calculated Pillar Strength (MPa)
Pillar Stability Calculation
Figure 81: Stress strength plot for all data in the combined database using the Salamon & Munro (1967)
-
strength formula and “K” O.7.UCS.
140
120
CO
F.S. — 1.4
l00
•
— A
•
-
80
• • A
60 - - - -
• A A A
•
40
0.5 0.75
A Ps0.7*UCS*(w ,h )
20
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Calculated Pillar Strength (MPa)
Pillar Stability Calculation
E
• Failed • Unstable A Stable
Figure 82: Stress strength plot for all data in the combined database using the Hedley & Grant (1972)
-
strength formula and “K” — O.7.UCS.
132
0.7
F.S. - 1.0 - F.S. - 1.4
— — A
V
0.6 -
. .
C,,
0.5
z .
_.__
•• A • A
• . A
0.4 F3_.
—
• ; • • A
A
A A
— A A
AA
0.3 •• A
A • A A
• A .
AA
AA A
. 0.2 A A A
A
• A A
AA A A A
A A
0.1 -
Ps 0.7 *UCS * (0.64 + 0.36 (w/h))

178 observations
0.0 —
0.0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.0 2.4 2.8 3.2

Figure 83: Stability graph for Bieniawski’s (1975) strength formula using “K”.’O.7.UCS plotted over all of
the data in the combined database.
Salamon & Munro (1967) and Hedley &

Grant (1972) based upon 162 observations
I
+2 Classes +1 Class Perfect -1 Class -2 Classes
( Bieniawski (1975)
E Hedley & Grant (1972) Salamon & Munro (1967) Confinement Formula
J
Figure 84: Pillar strength prediction success statistics for “The Confinement Formula” vs. Bieniawski
(1975), Hedley & Grant (1972), and Salamon & Munro (1967) using “K”-O.7.UCS.
133
0.7
F.S. = 1.0
0.6 -
F.S. — 1.4
0.5 -
•
A
A
0.4
A A - A
A
.. 0.3
A A
0.2 A
A A
0.1
0.5
Ps0.44*UCS *(w/h)
178 observations
0.0
0.0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.0 2.4 2.8 3.2
[ aiiec • Unstable A Stabl)
Figure 85: Stability graph for the original “Power Shape Effect Formula” using “K”-O.44.UCS plotted over
all of the data in the combined database.
0.7
F.S.-l.0
A
A
A A
Bieniawski (1975) Oben & Duvall (1961)

Ps 0.44 *UCS * (0.64 + 0.36 (w/h)) Ps 0.44 *UCS * (0.778 + 0.222 (w/h)) 178 observations
0.0 I I I I I I
0.0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.0 2.4 2.8 3.2
Pillar Width! Height Ratio
f’ Failed • Unstable Stable
L - Bieniawski (1975) Obert & DuvalI (1967)
Figure 86: Stability graph for Obert & Duvall’s (1967) and Bieniawski’s (1975) strength formulae using
“K” =O.44.UCS plotted over all of the data in the combined database.
134
90%-
80%
70%-
4o%
30%-
20%-
10%-
+2 Classes
I +1 Class Perfect -l Class
I —
-2 Classes
Org. Power Shape Effect Bieniawski (1975) Obert & Duvall (1967) Confinement Formula
Figure 87: Pillar strength prediction success statistics for “The Confinement Formula” vs. the original;
“Power Shape Effect Formula”, Bieniawski (1975), and Obert & Duvall (1967) using
O.44.UCS.
135
6. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
6.1 SUMMARY
This chapter summarizes the practice of using rock mechanics data obtained through observation,
measurement and modelling to implement methods for pillar strength estimation. The previous chapters enable
mining practitioners to develop an understanding of the critical variables that affect and ultimately control the
behaviour of pillars in hard rock mining operations. The methods that have been introduced in the preceding
chapters have given us a pillar design guidelines as follows:
• pillar stability assessment using pillar stability classification

• numerical modelling strategies
• assessment of full-size unconfined compressive strength size factor, “K”
• a refined purely empirical strength formula, “The Log-Power Shape Effect Formula”
• a new pillar strength hypothesis, “The Confinement Formula”
These design methods are intended to be used for hard rock pillars with rock mass ratings of between
60 and 85 and to be implemented in operations where there exists a knowledge of pillar stability and loading
conditions. The pillar strength formulae should be used with caution in mine operations where a local database
for calibration is not available.
It has been shown that the results from numerical modelling for stress analysis can be highly variable.
Because of the inherent variability in the pillar design variables, caution must be exercised in implementing
design guidelines of this nature in new mining operations. It is therefore recommended that a factor of safety
of 1.4, representing the transition from a stable to an unstable pillar, could be used initially for pillar design.
After the pillar design guidelines have been calibrated to a particular operation, this methodology can be used
with a higher degree of confidence and with reduced factors of safety, for designing mine pillars. It is always
desirable to design as close to a factor of safety of 1.0 as possible while maintaining the maximum level of
confidence in design.
6.1.1 Current Pillar Sfrength Determination Methods

Numerous researchers have proposed strength formulae. These formulae have been shown to be
inapplicable for use in hard rock mining operations. Much of this work was derived in soft rock coal
operations with pillars that have significantly higher width / height ratios than comparable hard rock mine
pillars. Wherever possible, the data from hard rock mine operations was included in the development of the
new pillar strength formulae.
6.1.2 Assessment of Pillar Failure

The pillar stability classification method developed can be used to assess a pillar’s current stability
condition. Pillars that are classified with a high stability classification number will have less load bearing
136
with numerical modelling results to determine if a pillar will perform as desired through the life of a mining
operation. The anticipated design guidelines suggest that a factor of safety of 1.2, representing a moderately
unstable pillar, could be used for design in situations where limited support is desired. Pillars that have a factor
of safety of 1.0 or less will invariably fail and require significant support as well as having limited load bearing
capacity.
6.1.3 Pillar Strength Estimation Methods

In addition to the collected data, published case histories data from around the world have been
subsequently used to develop improved empirical strength formulae and a new empirical strength hypothesis.
These relationships are shown in Figure 68, Figure 70, & Figure 74 and are determined to successfully predict
the stability for the combined database with a higher success than any preceding pillar strength estimation
methods. Two new strength formulae have been derived in this thesis, “The Log-Power Shape Effect
Formula” and “The Confinement Formula”. Both of these formulae plot in essentially the same location on
the pillar stability plot, however “The Confinement Formula” predicts pillar strength from a more theoretical
approach.
6.1.3.1 Refined Empirical Strength Formulae

Refined empirical strength constants for the “Power Shape Effect FQrmula” have been derived for
hard rock mine pillars to advance the state-of-the-art in mine pillar design. It was .determined that a variable
power exponent, based upon average pillar confinement, provided the optimum prediction success for the
design of mine pillars when compared to previous pillar strength estimation methods. This formula is called
the “Log-Power Shape Effect Formula”.
6.1.3.2 A New Strength Hypothesis

A new strength hypothesis pertaining to the strength of mine pillars has been proposed and is verified
by the combined hard rock pillar database. “The Confinement Formula” proposes that pillar strength is
dependent on average pillar confinement as a driving term. This confinement term can be derived from the
width I height ratio of a mine pillar or potentially from numerical modelling. The use of pillar confinement is
an area where further investigation should be applied. Average pillar confmement was derived from two-
dimensional modelling using variable extraction ratios. For extraction ratios of between 65% and 90%, the
variability in the value of the Cp coefficient represents a potential error of ±5% and the author concludes that
for most mining situations this potential error is acceptable.
“The Confinement Formula” can be used in two situations; to design pillars in a new mine that has a
limited database, and within an existing mine where there is experience related to how pillars will perform
under load. In the existing mine situation, “The Confinement Formula” can be used to design new pillars
based on the behaviour of existing pillars and to make assessments of the stability of existing pillars. In a new
137
mine situation, some form of calibration must be performed before a strength formula can be used with
confidence.
6.1.4 Pillar Strength Calibration

In order to use any pillar strength estimation method, it must be calibrated to existing mine pillars.
Calibration using pillars that are at a known stability rating and have had loads determined through numerical
modelling can be used to calibrate the “The Confinement Formula” and give an operator an indication of
whether or not mine pillars are performing as predicted. Calibration can be accomplished in two ways.
Numerical modelling input parameters, i.e. in-situ stress values, can be altered so that the predicted loads on
the classified mine pillars place those pillars in the correct stability region on the pillar stability graph. The
second approach is to modify the unconfined compressive strength, within acceptable ranges, of the intact pillar
material so that classified pillars fall within their predicted stability range
6.2 FUTURE WORK

In order to advance the results that have been presented in this thesis, the author recommends that any
future work in pillar strength estimation and failure assessment should be directed to the following topics:
• Verification that the methodology of pillar stability classification is valid in other mining
operations. This should be accomplished through the monitoring of pillars from the original
creation, throughout their life.
• Follow-up work to verify that the use of average pillar confinement reasonably represents the
results of two dimensional modelling presented here. Three-dimensional modelling of various
pillar shapes would be required.
• Collection of additional case histories to be added to the pillar stability database and the values of
the empirical strength constants revised if required.
6.3 CONCLUSIONS
The above pillar strength determination methods will enable hard rock mine operators to improve
pillar design methodology which will increase the design success and level of safety in areas where pillars are
used. It should be noted that this approach is applicable only to the progressive failure of pillars that are not
subject to other failure modes such as discrete failure planes transecting pillars. The methods applied in this
thesis have shown that the estimation of pillar strength is not a “Black Art”. Various stress determination and
pillar stability classification methods have been applied to a large database, which has subsequently been used
to develop the results presented in this thesis. Bringing this data together to a common frame of reference has
resulted in improved methods of estimating the strength of hard rock mine pillars. In conclusion this project
,
has resulted in the development of applied research tools which will benefit both the mine operators and the
mining community as a whole.
138
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Agapito, J.F.T. 1972. Pillar design in competent bedded formations. PhD Thesis, Co. Sch. Mm.
Agapito, J.F.T. 1974. Rock mechanics applications to the design of oil shale pillars. Mm. Engr 5, 20-5.
Agapito, J.F.T. 1986. Pillar stability in large underground openings: Applications from a case study in
competent jointed rock. Q. Cob. Sch. Mm. 81(3).
Agapito, J.F.T., Hardy, M.P. 1982. Induced horizontal stress method of pillar design in oil shale. Proc. 15th oil
shale symp., Gary (ed.), 179-9 1. Golden: Co. Sch. Mi Press.
Alexander, E.G., Fabjanczyk, M.W. 1981. Extraction design using open stopes for pillar recovery in the 1100
orebody at Mount Isa. In Design and operation of caving and sublevel stoping mines, D.R. Stewart (ed.),
437-58. New York: Soc. Mi Engrs, AIME.
Alexander, L.G., Maconochie, DJ., Matthews, S.M., Tillmann, V.H. 1981. Observations and analysis of rock
deformation around some open stopes. In Design and operation of caving and sublevel stoping mines,
D.R. Stewart (ed.), 43-98. New York: Soc. Mi Engrs, AIME.
Allcott, G.A., Archibald, D.E., 1981. Description of pillar behaviour at Heath Steele Mines. Can. Inst. Mm.
Metal!. Bull. 74, 80-7.
Arjang, B., Stevens, K. 1991. Pre-mining and pillar stress determinations at the H-W Mine, Westmin
Resources, B.C. CANMET Division Report. 91-144.
Ashley, G.H. 1930. Barrier pillar legislation in Pennsylvania. Trans. AIME, Coal Div., 76-97.
Babcock, C., Morgan, T., Haramy, K. 1981. Review of pillar design Equations including the effects of
constraint. Proc. 1st ann. conf. on ground control in mining, West Virginia Univ., Peng (ed.), 23-34.
Morgantown: West. Virginia Univ.
Babcock, C.O. 1969. Effect of end constraint on the compressive strength of model rock pillars. Trans. Soc.
Mm. Engrs, AIME 244, 3 57-63.
Barrett, J.D., Chester, G. 1980. Post-pillar cut and fill mining: comparison of theory and practice. Proc. conf.
on the application of rock mechanics to cut andfill mining, Lulea, Stephansson & Jones (eds.), 272-83.
London: Inst. Mm. Metall.
Barrett, J.R., Grumitt, B., Wical, M. 1979. Arch formation and pillar yield in jointed rock. Proc. 4th congr.,
mt. Soc. Rock Mech., Montreux, II, 17-23. Rotterdam: A.A. Balkema.
Belinski, A., Borecki, M. 1964. Results of investigation on rock pressure by the longwall system of coal mining
in the Upper Silesian coal field. Proc. 4th mt. conf. on strata control and rock mech., Columbia
University, 85-8.
Bieniawski, Z.T. 1967. Discussion A study of the strength of coal pillars by M.D.G. Salamon and A.H. Munro
-
and A method of designing bord and pillar workings by M.D.G. Salamon. J. S. Afr. Inst. Mm. Metal!. 68,
185-99.
Bieniawski, Z.T. 1968. The effect of specimen size on compressive strength of coal. mt. J. Rock Mech. Mm.
Sci. 5, 325-35.
Bieniawski, Z.T. 1968. Note on the in-situ testing of the strength of coal pillars. J. S. Afr. Inst. Mm. Metal!. 69,
455-465.
Bieniawski, Z.T. 1973. Engineering classification of jointed rock masses. Trans. S. Afr. Inst. Civil Engineers
15, No. 12, 335-44.
139
Bieniawski, Z.T. 1974. Estimating the strength of rock materials. J. S. Afr. Inst. Mm. Metall. 74, 312-20.
Bieniawski, Z.T. 1977. Discussion A review of coal pillar strength formulas by W.A. Hustrulid. Rock Mech.
-
10,107-11.
Bieniawski, Z.T. 1981. Improved design of coal pillars for U.S. mining conditions. Proc. 1st ann. conf. on
ground control in mining, West Virginia Univ., Peng (ed.), 13-22. Morgantown: West. Virginia Univ.
Bieniawski, Z.T., 1982. An overview of ground support considerations in room and pillar coal mining. In
Ground control in room-and-pillar mining, Chugh (ed.), 95-104. New York: Soc. Mi Engrs, AIME.
Bieniawski, Z.T., 1982. Improved design of room and pillar coal mines for U.S. conditions. Proc. 1st i. conf
on stability in underground mining, Brawner (ed.), 19-5 1. New York: Soc. Mi Engrs, AIME.
Bieniawski, Z.T., van Heerden, W.L. 1975. The significance of in-situ tests on large rock specimens. mt. J.
Rock Mech. Mi Sci. & Geomech. Abstr. 12, 101-13.
Borecki, M., Kidybinski, A. 1970. Coal strength and bearing capacity of coal pillars. Proc. 2nd congr. mt. Soc.
Rock Mech. 2, 3.21. Belgrad: “Privredni Pregled”.
Brady, B.H.G. 1977. An analysis of rock behaviour in an experimental stoping block at the Mount Isa Mine,
Queensland, Australia. mt. J. Rock Mech. Mi Sci. & Geomech. Abstr. 14, 59-66.
Brady, B.H.G. 1979. A direct formulation of the boundary element method of stress analysis for complete plane
strain. mt. J. Rock Mech. Mi Sci. & Geomech. Abstr. 16, 235-44.
Brady, B.H.G. 1981. Determination of stability of underground mine structures. In Design and operation of
caving and sublevel stoping mines, D.R. Stewart (ed.), 427-43 4. New York: Soc. Mi Engrs, AIME.
Brady, B.H.G., Bray, J.W. 1978. The boundary element method for determining stresses and displacements
around long openings in a triaxial stress field. mt. J. Rock Mech. Mm. Sci. & Geomech. Abstr. 15, 21-8.
Brady, B.H.G., Brown, E.T. 1985. Rock mechanics for underground mining. London: George Allen & Unwin.
Brown, E.T., 1987. Analytical and computational methods in engineering rock mechanics. London: George
Allen & Unwin.
Budavari, S. 1983. Rock mechanics in mining practice. Johannesburg: S. Aft. Inst. Mi Metall.
Bullock, G.T. 1975. An example of practical rock mechanics at Cominco Ltd.’s Sullivan Mine. Proc. 10th Can.
symp. rock mech., Kingston, 225-45. Kingston: Dept. Mi Engrng., Queens Univ.
Bunting, D. 1911. Chamber-pillars in deep anthracite mines. Trans. AIME 42, 739-4&
Bywater, S., Cowling, R., Black, B.N. 1983. Stress measurement and analysis for mine planning. Proc. 4th
congr. mt. Soc. Rock Mech. D, 29-37.
Coates, D.F. 1965. Pillar loading part 1: Literature survey and new hypothesis. Mines Br. Res. Rep. R-168.
-
Ottawa: Dept. Mines Tech. Sun’.
Coates, D.F. 1971. Discussion Stability, instability and design of pillar workings by M.D.G. Salamon.
- mt. J.
Rock Mech. Miii. Sci. 8, 667-8.
Coates, D.F. 1973. Variance of pillar stresses at Elliot Lake. mt. J. Rock Mech. Mm. Sci. 10, 627-40.
Coates, D.F. 1981. Rock mechanics principles, 3rd edn. Mi Br. Monograph 874. Ottawa: Information
Canada.
140
Coates, D.F., Ignatieff, A. 1966. Prediction and measurement of pillar stresses. Can. Inst. Mm. Metal!. Bull. 59,
50-6.
Coulomb, C.A. 1776. Essaie sur une application des regles de maximis et minimis a quelques problemes de
statique, relatifs a l’architecture. Memories de Mathematique et de Physique, L’Academie Royale des
Sciences 7, 343-82
Ccx, R.M., Deering, P.E. 1967. A model study of coal mine pillars. Soc. Mi Engrs, A1ME, AGM 1967,
Preprint 67AM22.
Cundall, P.A. 1971. A computer model for simulating progressive large scale movements in blocky rock
systems. Proc. Symp. mt. Soc. Rock Mech.: Vol. 1, 11-8. Nancy
Denkhaus, H.G. 1962. A critical review of the present state of scientific knowledge related to the strength of
mine pillars. J. S. Afr. Inst. Mi Metall. 62, 59-75.
Goel, S.C., Page, C.H. 1981. Regional support pillars for improving working conditions in open stoping. In
Design and operation of caving and sublevel stoping mines, D.R. Stewart (ed.), 459-69. New York: Soc.
Mm. Engrs, AIME.
Golder Associates Ltd. 1983. Internal Report 832-1525.
Gorski, B., Conlon, B. 1992. Strength determinations of Myra Falls Mine rocks. CANMET Division Report.
MRL 92-027.
Greenwald, H.P., Howarth, H.C., Hartman, I. 1939. Experiments on strength of small pillars of coal in the
Pittsburgh bed. U.S. Bur. Mines Tech. Paper No. 605.
Greenwald, H.P., Howarth, H.C., Hartman, I. 1941. Progress report: Experiments on strength of small pillars of
coal in the Pittsburgh bed. U.S. Bur. Mines Rep. mv. 3575.
Grobbelaar, C. 1970. The theoretical strength of coal pillars. Proc. 2nd congr. hit. Soc. Rock Mech 2, 4.17.
Belgrad: “Privredni Pregled”.
Hamrin, H.O. 1982. Choosing an underground mining method. In Underground mining methods handbook,
W.A. Hustrulid (ed.), 88-112. New York: Soc. Mm. Engrs, Am. Inst. Mi Metall. Petrolm Engrs.
Hardy, M.P., Agapito, J.F.T. 1975. Pillar design in underground oil shale mines. In Design methods in rock
mechanics, Proc. 16th U.S. symp. rock mech., Fairhurst & Crouch (eds.), 257-65. New York: ASCE.
Hallbauer, D.K., Wagner, H., Cook, N.G.W. 1973. Some observations concerning the microscopic and
mechanical behaviour of quartzite specimens in stiff triaxial compression tests. hit. J. Rock Mech. Mm.
Sci. 10, 7 13-26.
Hazen, G., Artler, L. 1976. Practical pillar design problem. Mi Congr. J. June, 86-92.
Hedley, D.G.F. 1976. Pillar mechanics in post-pillar mining. Mm. Res. Lab., Div. Rpt. 76-145. Ottawa: Can.
Center Mm. Energy Tech.
Hedley, D.G.F. 1978. Design guidelines for multi-seam mining at Elliot Lake. Mi Res. Lab., Div. Rpt. 78-9.
Ottawa: Can. Center Mm. Energy Tech.
Hedley, D.G.F., Gangal, M., Morgan, G. 1983. Effect ofpillar orientation on stability. Mm. Res. Lab., Div.
Rpt. 83-63. Ottawa: Can. Center Mm. Energy Tech.
Hedley, D.G.F., Grant, F. 1972. Stope and pillar design for the Elliot Lake uranium mines. Can. Inst. Mm.
Metal!. Bull. 65, 37-44.
141
Hedley, D.G.F., Wilson, J.C. 1975. Rock mechanics applications in Canadian underground mines. Can. inst.
Mm. Metall. Bull. 68, 61-73.
Herget, G. 1987. Technical Note Stress assumptions for underground excavations in the Canadian Shield. mt.
-
J. Rock Mech. Mm. Sci. & Geomech. Abstr. 24, 95-7.
Herget, G., Pahi, A., Oliver, P. 1975. Ground stresses below 3000 feet. Proc. 10th Can. symp. rock mech.,
Kingston, 28 1-307. Kingston: Dept. Mm. Engrng, Queens Univ.
Heuze, F.E. 1980. Scale effects in the determination of rock mass strength and deformability. Rock Mech. 12,
167-92.
Hobbs, D.W. 1970. The behaviour of broken rock under triaxial compression. mt. J. Rock Mech. Mm. Sci. 7,
125-48.
Hoek, E., Brown, E.T. 1980. Underground excavations in rock. London: Instn Mi Metall.
Hock, E., Brown, E.T. 1988. The Hock-Brown failure criterion a 1988 update. In Rock engineering for
-
underground excavations. Proc. 15th Can. symp. rock mech., 3 1-8. Toronto: Dept. Civ. Engng, Univ.
Toronto.
Holland, C.T. 1956. Some aspects of permanent support of overburden on coal beds. Proc. West Virginia Coal
Mining Inst., 45-56.
Holland, C.T. 1962. Design of pillars for overburden support part 1. Mm. Congr. J. 3, 24-8.
-
Holland, C.T. 1962. Design of pillars for overburden support part 2. Mi

- Congr. J. 4, 66-7 1.
Holland, C.T. 1964. The strength of coal in mine pillars. Proc. 6th U.S. symp. rock mech., Spokes &
Christiansen (eds.), 450-68. Rolla: Univ. Missouri.
Holland, C.T. 1973. Pillar design for permanent and semi-permanent support of the overburden in coal mines.
Proc. 9th Can. symp. rock mech., 113-39. Ottawa: Mm. Br., Dept. Energy Mines Res.
Holland, C.T. 1973. Mine pillar design. In SME mining engineering handbook, Cummins & Given (edsj,
13.96-124. New York: Soc. Mi Engrs, AIME.
Hudyma, M.R. 1988. Rib pillar design in open stope mining. MASc. thesis, Univ. Brit. Col.
Hustrulid, W.A. 1976. A review of coal pillar strength formulas. Rock Mech. 8, 115-45.
John, M. 1972. Time-dependence ofmechanical properties and fracture processes of rock materials. PhD
thesis, Technical University Graz.
Kersten, R.W.O 1984. The design of pillars in the shrinkage stoping of a South African gold mine. J. S. Afr.
Inst. Mm. Metall. 84, 365-8.
Kersten, R.W.O. 1982. Design of pillars in shrinkage stoping. Soc. Mi Engrs, AIME, Fall Meeting 1982,
Preprint 82-304.
King, HJ., Whittalcer, B.N. 1971. A review of current knowledge on roadway behaviour. Proc. symp. on
roadway strata control, IMinE, Paper No. 6,73-87.
Kostak, B. 1971. Pillar strength prediction from representative sample of hard rock. Int. J. Rock Mech. Mm.
Sci. 8, 523-6.
Kostak, B., Bielenstein, H.U. 1971. Strength distribution in hard rock. mt. J. Rock Mech. Mm. Sci. 8, 501-20.
Krauland, N, Soder, P.E. 1987. Determining pillar strength from pillar observation. Eng. Mi J. 8, 34-40.
142
Krauland, N, Soder, P., Agmalm, G. 1989. Determination of rock mass strength by rock mass classification,
some experiences and questions from Boliden Mines. mt. J. Rock Mech. Mm. Sci. & Geomech. Absrr. 26,
115-23.
Kuzyk, G.W.R., Smith, J.D. 1982. Ground monitoring program for pillar reduction at the Tanco Mine. Proc.
1st i. conf. on stability in underground mining, Brawner (ed.), 847-73. New York: Soc. Mm. Engrs,
AIME.
Langstaff, A.L., Raymond, H.D. 1984. Design considerations in western U.S. room and pillar oil shale mines.
Proc. 2nd mt. conf stab. underground mining, Szwilski & Brawner (eds.), 23-41. New York: Soc. Mm.
Engrs, AIME.
Logie, C.V., Matheson, G.M. 1983. A critical review of the current state of the art of mine pillars. Proc. 1st mt.
conf. on stability in underground mining, Brawner (ed.), 359-82. New York: Soc. Mm. Engrs, AIME.
Lundborg, N. 1968. Strength of rock-like materials. mt. J. Rock Mech. Mi Sci. 5, 427-5 4.
Maconochie, DJ., Friday, R.G., Palmer, W.T., Thompson, I.R.R 1981. An application of monitoring and
numerical modelling in open stope mining. Proc. fourth Australian tunneling conf Melbourne, Australia.
157-70.
Madden, B.J. 1991. A re-assessment of coal pillar design. J. S. Afr. Ins:. Mi Metal!. 91, 27-37.
Mello Mendes, F., Da Gama, C.D. 1972. Laboratory simulation of mine pillar behaviour. In New horizons in
rock mechanics, Proc. 14th U.S. symp rock mech., Hardy & Stefanko (eds.), 107-19. New York: ASCE.
Miller, D.R., Barrett, J.R. 1979. Jointed rock mass characteristics and their influence on slender pillars. Proc.
20th U.S. symp. rock mech., Gray (ed.) 199-208. Austin: Cen. Earth Sci. and Engrng, Univ. Texas Austin.
Mitchell, A. 1983. Recovery of ore pillars one hundred feet high. CNCRM symp. on underground support
systems, Paper 11.
Morrison, R.G.K., Corlett, A.V., Rice, H.R. 1961. Report of the special committee on mining practices. Pt. II,
Bull. 155, Ont. Dept. of Mines.
Murrell, S.A.F. 1965. The effect of triaxial stress systems on the strength of rock at atmospheric temperatures.
Geophys. J. R. Astr. Soc. 10, 231-81.
Obert, L., Duvall, W.I. 1967. Rock mechanics and the design of structures in rock. New York: Wiley.
Obert, L., Windes, S.L., Duvall, W.I. 1946. Standardization tests for determining the physical properties of
mine rock. U. S. Bureau of Mines Report of Investigations, 3891.
Page, C.H., Brennen, R.G. 1982. Stability of large open stopes in weak rock. Proc. 1st in conf. on stability in
underground mining, Brawner (ed.), 336-56. New York: Soc. Mm. Engrs, AIME.
Pakalnis, R.C., Lunder, P.J., Vongpaisal, S. 1993. Pillar strength estimation at Westmin Resources’ H-W Mine
-a case study. Trans. inst. Mm. Metal!., 1MM. 102A, 165-A172
Pakalnis, R.C., Miller, H., Madill, T. 1985. In-situ stress determination at Ruttan Mine, Sheritt Gordon Mines
Ltd. Can. Inst. Mm. Metal!. Bull. 78, 47-52.
Panek, L.A. 1979. Estimating mine pillar strength from compression tests. Trans. Soc. Mm. Engrs, AIME. 268,
1749-61.
Pariseau, W.G. 1975. Limit design of mine pillars under uncertainty. In Design methods in rock mechanics,
Proc. 16th U.S. symp. rock mech., Fairhurst & Crouch (eds.), 287-301. New York: ASCE.
143
Pariseau, W.G. 1980. Inexpensive but technically sound mine pillar design analysis. In The state of the art in
rock mechanics, Proc. 21st U.S. symp. rock mech., Summers (ed.), 57-72. Rolla Univ. Missouri.
Pariseau, W.G. 1982. Shear stability of mine pillars in dipping seams. In Issues in rock mechanics, Proc. 23th
U.S. symp. rock mech., 1077-90.
Parker, J. 1974. The logical way to design pillars. Eng. Mi J. 2, 67-71.
Parker, J. 1982. Practical rock mechanics, pillar design problems or opportunities. Proc. 1st mt. conf. on
-
stability in underground mining, Brawner (ed.), 99-120. New York: Soc. Mi Engrs, AIME.
Payhe, A.R., Isaac, A.K. 1985. The application of numerical models in coal rib pillar design at longwall panels.
In Research and engineering applications in rock masses, Proc. 26th U.S. symp. rock mech., Ashworth
(ed.), 685-92. Rotterdam: A.A. Balkema.
Peng, S.S. 1986. Coal mine ground control. New York: Wiley.
Potvin, Y, Hudyma, M., Miller, H.D.S. 1989. Rib pillar design in open stope mining. Can. Inst. Mm. Metal!.
Bull. 82, 31-6.
Potvin, Y, Miller, H.D.S. 1985. Pillar design methodology. Can. Inst. Mm. Metal!., 87th AGM, Paper 123.
Potvin, Y. 1985. Investigation of underground mine pillar design procedures. MSc. thesis, Univ. Brit. Col.
Pratt, H.R., Black, A.D., Brown, W.5., Brace, W.F. 1972. The effect of specimen size on the mechanical
properties of unjointed diorite. mt. J. Rock Mech. Mi Sci. 9, 513-29.
Salamon, M.D.G. 1967. A method of designing bord and pillar workings. J. S. Afr. Inst. Mm. Metal!. 67, 68-
78.
Salamon, M.D.G. 1970. Stability, instability and design of pillar workings. Int. J. Rock Mech. Mi Sci. 7, 613-
68.
Salamon, M.D.G. 1974. Rock mechanics of underground excavations. In Advances in rock mechanics, Proc.
3rd congr., Tnt. Soc. Rock Mech., Denver, 1B, 951-1099. Washington, DC: Nat. Acad. Sci.
Salamon, M.D.G. 1983. The role of pillars in mining. In Rock mechanics in mining practice, Budavari (ed.),
173-200. Johannesburg: SAIMM.
Salamon, M.D.G., Munro, A.H. 1967. A study of the strength of coal pillars. J. S. Afr. Inst. Mm. Metal!. 67,
55-67.
Sheorey, P.R. 1968. Discussion The effects of specimen size on compressive strength of coal by Z.T.
Bieniawski. mt. J. Rock Mech. Mi Sci. 7, 231.
-
Sheorey, P.R. 1980. Discussion Estimating mine pillar strength from compression tests by L.A. Panek. Trans.
-
Soc. Mi Engrs, AIME 272,2005-9.
Sheorey, P.R. 1988. Estimation of gain in pillar strength due to bolting, technical note. Int. J. Rock Mech. Mm.
Sci. & Geomech. Abstr. 25, 321-6.
Sheorey, P.R., Barat, D., Singh, B. 1976. Assessment of barrier stability in a pyrite mine. mt. J. Rock Mech.
Mi Sci. & Geomech. Absir. 13, 31-4.
Sheorey, P.R., Das, M.N., Barat, D., Prasad, R.K., Singh, B. 1987. Coal pillar strength estimation from failed
and stable cases. Int. J. Rock Mech. Mi Sci. & Geomech. Abstr. 24, 347-55.
Sheorey, P.R., Singh, B. 1974. Strength of rectangular pillars in partial extraction. mt. J. Rock Mech. Mi Sci.
& Geomech. Abstr. 11, 41-4.
144
Sheorey, P.R., Singh, B. 1974. Estimation of pillar loads in single and contiguous seam workings. tnt. J. Rock
Mech. Mm. Sci. & Geomech. Abstr. 11, 97-102.
Singh, R.D. 1970. An enquiry into the stability and failures of coal pillars. Proc. 2nd congr. tnt. Soc. Rock
Mech. 2, 4.30. Belgrad: “Privredni Pregled”.
Sjoberg, J., 1992. Failure modes and pillar behaviour in the Zinkgruvan Mine. Proc. 33rd U.S. symp. rock
mech., Tillerson & Wawersilc (eds.), 491-500. Rotterdam: A.A. Balkema.
Sjoberg, 3., Tillman, K. 1990. Stability of pillars in the Zinkgruvan Mine a case study. In Rock mechanics
-
contributions and challenges, Proc. 31St U.S. symp. rock mech., Hustrulid & Johnson (eds.), 1035-42.
Rotterdam: A.A. Balkema.
Skelly, W.A., Wolgamott, J., Wang, F.D. 1977. Coal mine pillar strength and deformation prediction through
laboratory sample testing. In Energy resources and excavation technology, Proc. 18th U.S. symp. rock
mech., Wang & Clark (eds.), 2B5. 1-5 Golden: Co. Sch. Mm. Press.
.
Snodgrass, J.J., Newman, D.A. 1985. An in situ technique for the assessment of failure in coal pillars. In
Research and engineering applications in rock masses, Proc. 26th U.S. symp. rock mech., Ashworth
(ed.), 1181-8. Rotterdam: A.A. Balkema.
Stacey, T.R., Page, C.H. 1986. Practical handbookfor underground rock mechanics. Clausthal-Zellerfel, West
Germany: Trans Tech Pubi.
Starfield, A.M., Fairhurst, C. 1968. How high-speed computers advance the design of practical mine pillar
systems. Eng. Mi J. 169 No. 5, 78-84.
Starfield, A.M., Wawersik, W.R. 1968. Pillars as structural components in room and pillar mines. In Basic and
applied rock mechanics, Proc. 10th U.S. symp. rock mech., Gray (ed.), 793-809. New York: Soc. Mm.
Engrs, AJME.
Steart, F.A. 1954. Strength and stability of pillars in coal mines. J. Chem. Metall. Mm. Soc. S. Afr. 54, 309-35.
Stephansson, 0. 1985. Pillar design for large open stoping. Proc. mt. symp. on large scale underground
mining, Almgren (ed.), 185-97. Lulea: Centek.
Szwilski, A.B. 1980. Influence of coal rib pillar width on the stability of strata around the face end and
gateroad in longwall mining. In The state of the art in rock mechanics, Proc. 21st U.S. symp. rock mech.,
Summers (ed.), 285-98. Rolla: Univ. Missouri.
Szwilski, A.B. 1982. Sizing of chain pillars around longwall panels. Proc. 1st mt. conf. on stability in
underground mining, Brawner (ed.), 535-58. New York: Soc. Mi Engrs, AIME.
Townsend, P. 1982. Pillar stability at Elliot Lake, a comparison of empirical and analytical methods of
prediction. In Rock breaking and mechanical excavation, Proc. 14th Can. symp. rock mech.,
Baumgartner (ed.), 133-7. Montreal: Can. Inst. Mm. Metall.
Tsur-Lavie, Y., Denekamp, S. 1977. Application of stress measurements to the solution of underground
stability problems at the Timna Copper Mine. Proc. mt. symp. on field measurements in rock mech.,
Zurich, Kovari (ed.), 209-17. Rotterdam: A.A. Balkema.
Tsur-Lavie, Y., Denekamp, S.A. 1982. Size and shape effect in pillar design. Proc. symp. on strata mech.,
Newcastle upon Tyne, Farmer (ed.), 245-8. Amsterdam: Elsevier Sci. Pub. Co.
van Heerden, W.L. 1970. Stress measurements in coal pillars. Proc. 2nd congr. mt. Soc. Rock Mech. 2, 4.16.
Belgrad: “Privredni Pregled”.
145
van Heerden, W.L. 1974. In-situ determination of complete stress-strain characteristics of 1.4 m. square
specimens with width to height ratios up to 3.4. CSIR Research Rept, ME 1265.
Von Kimmelman, M.R., Hyde, B., Madgwick, RJ. 1984. The use of computer applications at BCL Limited in
planning pillar extraction and the design of mining layouts. In Design and performance of underground
excavations, mt. Soc. Rock Mech. symp., Brown & Hudson (eds.), 53-63. London: Brit. Geotech. Soc.
Wagner, H. 1974. Determination of the complete load-deformation characteristics of coal pillars. In Advances
in rock mechanics, Proc. 3rd congr., mt. Soc. Rock Mech. IIB, 1076-81. Washington, DC: Nat. Acad.
Sci.
Wagner, H. 1975. The application of rock mechanics principles to strata control in South African mines. Proc.
10th Can. symp. rock mech., Kingston, 247-80. Dept. Mi Engrng, Queens Univ.
Wagner, H. 1980. Pillar design in coal mines. J. S. Afr. Inst. Mm. Metal!. 80, 37-45.
Wagner, H. 1983. Principles of support of tabular excavations. In Rock mechanics in mining practice, Budavari
(ed.), 15 1-71. Johannesburg: SAIMM.
Walker R.R. Westmin Resources’ Massive Sulfide Deposits, Vancouver Island. in Mineral deposits of
Vancouver island Fleming 3., Walker R. and Wilton P. eds. (GAC-MAC-CGU, 1983), 5-19.
Wang, F.D., Panek, L.A., Sun, M.C. 1971. Stability analysis of underground openings using a Coulomb failure
criterion. Trans. Soc. Mm. Engrs, AIME 250, 317-21.
Westmin Resources Ltd. 1993, Ground stability guidelines for the extraction of barrier pillars in hard rock
mines. Project Number: 1-9045. Canadian Centre for Mineral and Energy Technology.
Whittaker, B.N., Singh, R.N. 1979. Design and stability of pillars in longwall mining. Mm. Engr 138, 59-73.
Wiles, T.D., 1988. Accuracy and applicability of elastic stress analysis methods in mining. In Rock engineering
for underground excavations. Proc. 15th Can. symp. rock mech., Toronto, 207-19.Toronto: Dept. Civ.
Engng, Univ. Toronto.
Wiles, T.D. 1990. Predication of ground instability using numerical modelling. Can. Inst. Mm. Metal!., 92nd
AGM, Ottawa, Paper 46.
Wiles, T.D. 1991. Map3D users manual.

-
Wilson, A.H. 1977. The effect of yield zones on the control of ground. Proc. 6th mt. strata control conf., Banif,
Paper 3. Ottawa: Can. Center Mm. Energy Tech.
Wilson, A.H., 1972. Research into the determination of pillar size, part 1: A hypothesis concerning pillar
stability. Mm. Engr 131, 409-416.
Wilson, A.H., 1982. Pillar stability in longwall mining. In State-of-the-art ofground control in longwall
mining and mining subsidence, Chugh & Karmis (eds.), 85-95. New York: Soc. Mi Engrs, AIME.
Zern, E.N. 1926. Coal miners pocketbook, 11th edition, New York: McGraw Hill.
Zienkiewicz, O.C. 1977. The finite element method. London: McGraw-Hill.
146
APPENDIX A TWO DIMENSIONAL PARAMETRIC MODELLING RESULTS
- -
This appendix contains results of the two-dimensional parametric modelling session that was
performed in conjunction with the determination of the “Average Pillar Confinement” relationship in chapter
5. Figure 88 Figure 93 are factor of safety plots of various pillar width / height ratios using the Hock and
-
Brown failure criteria and “m” and “s” values of 10 and 0.1 respectively. The model unconfined compressive
strength was modified in each case such that a zone of failure existed in each of the models. In all cases the
predicted zone of failure initially materialized at the mid-height of the pillar. Figure 94- Figure 105 are plots
of major and minor principal stresses in the modelled pillars. Contour intervals were chosen such that the
average pillar stresses could be calculated with the greatest ease at the mid-height of the pillar, the point of
initial predicted failure. The stress values presented do not represent actual mining conditions. The values
used were for comparative purposes only in the derivation of the average pillar confinement.
147
Horizontal scale exaggerated by 6%
Modelled extraction ratio 99.5%
Will = 0.25
TENSION 9.7 . e 0. 9 1.00 L.i i.2 1. • 3G

..
W/H = 0.5
..
TENSION Ø.8 9.9 i.ø L•1 j. j.3

I I ••
Figure 88: Plot of pillar factor of safety for width! height ratios of 0.25 and 0.5. Hoek & Brown (1980) rock
mass constants used: m — 10, s 0.1. Modelling performed using Examine2D.
=
148
W/H = 0.75 Modelled extraction ratio = 99.5%
TENSION 9.79 9.89 9.90 1.99 1.19 1.20 1.39

I ..
W/H = 1.0
TENSION 9.79 9.89 9.99

I — 1.99 1.19 1.29 1.39
••
Figure 89: Plot of pillar factor of safety for width I height ratios of 0.75 and 1.0. Hoek & Brown (1980) rock
mass constants used: m 10, s = 0.1. Modelling performed using Examine2D.
149
W/H = 1.25
TENSION 9.7w .BG 1. i.i 1. i.3

1 Vii ••
‘ri’1
W/ll = 1.5
TENSION ø.6 a.7 .8O .9g

— 1.GG j.jg
I F IVIR Vi VI ••
mass constants used: m — 10, s — 0.1. Modelling performed using Examine2D.
150
Modelled extraction ratio — 99.5%
W/H = 175
TENSION Ià.70 .9ø i.O 1. 1.2
Will = 2.0
4
TENSION .6W .Ba .9G i.aa I.I 1 •
mass constants used: m — 10, s 0.1. Modelling performed using Examine2D.
151
Modelled extraction ratio = 99.5%
W/H=2.5
TENSION I. 1.L 1.2w

I I
WIN = 3.0
TENSION 9.5 g.7’.BO i. i.i
mass constants used: m 10, s = 0.1. Modelling performed using Examine2D.
152
W/H=3.5
TENSION 9.5 .6U .99 1. 1.1w

F I —
Will = 4.0
TENSION g.7g .$G ø.9g 1. 1.i

I—_
mass constants used: m — 10, s — 0.1. Modelling performed using Examine2D.
153
Sigma 1
TENSION aee.ew 859.UU 9G.US 95U.SO Loee.se iese.oe nea.ce

I I a
Sigma 3
TENSION 0.99 1.50 3.00 4.50 6.00 7.50 9.90

I
-
element modelling. Modelling performed using Examine2D.
154
Sigma 1
TENSION 999.00 958.99 1909.09 1050.08 1199.09 1150.09 1299.99

I I •
Sigma 3
TENSION 0.90 1.50 3.99 4.50 6.09 7.59 9 • 99

I 1 I..
modelling. Modelling performed using Examine2D.
155
Sigma 1 Modelled extraction ratio 99.5%
TENSION i75. 11B. Ii2. i175.
Sigma 3
TENSION e.uu ieu

I — 2Ø. 39. 4e.90
I ••
Figure 96: Principal stress plots for pillar width / height ratio of 0.75 using two-dimensional boundary
156
Sigma 1
TENSION 19.U 1e5.Ø9 1i5.O 125.9 i3W.

I I
Sigma 3
TENSION Z5.WU 75. 1Z5.
157
Sigma 1
TENSION 1109.00 1150.90 1290.09 1259.90 1300.00 1350.00 1400.

I I . .
Sigma 3
Figure 98: Principal stress plots for pillar width / height ratio of 1.25 using two-dimensional boundary
158
Sigma 1 Modelled extraction ratio 99.5%
TEION 1159. i25.9U i39.ø i35U.9 I4UU.

I I ..::: iI hihI ••
Sigma 3
TENSION 49.9w S9.ø iae. i6.U 2ø.G9

I I ..: ....I-. ‘ij
159
Sigma 1
TENSION 11.9 1.15.9 i2W. 125.ø 139.9 i35.

I I ••
Sigma 3
I 1
TENSION ø.9G
—
6U.G 24.UU 3.8ø 36.ø
I I
160
Sigma 1
— I
TENSION jg5g.9 1i2. i.L9O. ia6.Bg 133.O i49.e i47ø.

I I ••
Sigma 3
I
TENSION 9. 79. 2i.SS 2Be. 35.B 42W.U
I I
161
Sigma 1
TENSION 195.U ii5. i25.9 i35.99 145.U 155.9 i65.

I I—
Sigma 3
LI
=1
TENSION i8.e
—
9U.eg 54.9
I I
162
Sigma 1
..
TENSION 15Q. ii75. L3GW. i425.ø 155.G 1675. L899.
Sigma 3
TENSION ø.g
I I — 36G.u 4Z.US 54.a
163
Sigma 1
TENSION 1.25.e 145.ø i65ø. 1B5. 225W.

I I •
Sigma 3
TENSION 98. iB9.O 27.U 36.B

I I
Figure 104: Principal stress plots for pillar width / height ratio of 3.5 using twodimensional boundary element
164
Sigma 1
-1.
tENSION 15ø. 125. i45G.9 i65G9 1B59. 2Ø5. 225.
I I •
Sigma 3
TENSION U.
—
1BU. 4OU.U
I I
165
APPENDIX B METRIC TO IMPERICAL CONVERSION OF UNITS USED IN
-
THESIS
METRIC IMPERIAL
1 metre (m) = 3.28 feet (ft) = 39.3 inches (in)

1 centimetre (cm) = 0.0328 feet (ft) = 0.394 inches (in)
1 millimetre (mm) = 0.00328 feet (ft) = 0.0394 inches (in)
1 megapascal (MPa) = 145.5 pounds force per square inch (psi)
1 gigapascal (GPa) = 145,500 pounds force per square inch (psi)
1 meganewton (MN) = 3 pounds force (lbf)

224.7 x i0
166

Hard Rock Pillar Strength Estimation Lunder PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Hard Rock Pillar Strength Estimation Lunder PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

HARD ROCK PILLAR STRENGTH ESTIMATION

AN APPLIED EMPIRICAL APPROACH

PER JOHN LUNDER

B.A.Sc., The University of British Columbia, 1983

A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF

THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF

MASTER OF APPLIED SCIENCE

THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES

DEPARTMENT OF MINING AND MINERAL PROCESS ENGINEERING

We accept this thesis as conforming

to the required standard

THE UNIVERSITY OF BRiTISH COLUMBIA

August 18, 1994

© Per John Lunder, 1994

Department of Mi vzo c&S

• the average pillar confinement (which is a function of pillar geometry)

compressive strength of intact pillar material.

Mohr-Coulomb shear strength formula.

strength formula and “K” — 0.7.UCS 132

formula and “K” — 0.7.UCS 132

• The Cy and Emerald Keyes Scholarship fund for financial support.

• The proof readers, you know who you are.

leave valuable “ore grade” material unrecoverable.

culmination of mining operations at Westmin Resources Ltd. ‘s H-W Mine.

1.1 CONTENTS OF THESIS

analysis are reviewed.

comparable to the additional data presented in Chapter 5.

6. SUMMARY and CONCLUSIONS: Recommendations regarding the use of “The Confinement

presented in this appendix.

1.2 PILLAR STRENGTH ASSESSMENT AN OVERVIEW -

pillar design may result in the following:

• increased ore recovery

shapes, pillar sizes, and varying in-situ stress regimes.

1.3 RoLE OF PILLARS IN MINING

in which they are used. Pillar types can be:

• protection pillars surrounding mine shafts

determined, the pillar may not perform as desired.

“protective pillars”, and “control pillars” as described below:

3. “Control pillars” are employed in situations where rockburst activity is anticipated or

the primary goal of many researchers investigating pillar strength.

presented in this chapter.

• the intact strength of pillar material

• the in-situ stress conditions

the past to design pillars and to assess the pillar strength.

Empirical, by definition, is the method of relying on experiment or experience. The primary

analyzed and predicted pillar stresses determined with a minimum of effort.

2.1 PILLAR STRESS DETERMINATION

• the in-situ stress conditions

values of in-situ stresses used.

2.1.1 Tributary Area Theory

particularly applicable to:

• irregular and dipping deposits

theory can be written, in this case, in the form of Equation 3.

triaxial stress conditions. These are presented in the following sections.

Pillar area Rock column

Rock column area

2.1.1.1 Pariseau (1982) Inclined Stress Formulae

the normal and shear stresses respectively, acting on inclined pillars.

stresses can be variable (Herget, 1987).

2.1.1.2 Szwilski (1982) Chain Pillar Formula

2.1.1.3 Hedley & Grant’s (1972) Formula for Inclined Pillars

Figure 7: The “Chain Pillar Formula” layout (after Szwilski, 1982).

op Average normal pillar stress (MPa)